Title: McGeehan v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 145, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 16, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM McGEEHAN, 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   No. 145, 2006 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§   Court Below – Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   in and for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   Cr. A. No. 03-01-1294 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
   Submitted:  October 4, 2006 
 
 
 
 
      Decided:  October 16, 2006 
 
O R D E R 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
This 16th day of October 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
1) 
The defendant-appellant, William McGeehan, has appealed the 
Superior Court’s revocation of his probation.  McGeehan argues that he was 
deprived of his due process rights because he was not given notice nor 
represented by counsel when sanctioned for a prior violation of probation by 
testing positive for cocaine.  In addition, he argues that he was never 
informed that he needed medical documentation to be excused from 
attending a probation required weekend intervention. 
2) 
The record reflects that McGeehan was serving probation after 
incarceration for two DUI convictions.  As part of his probation, McGeehan 
 
2
was to report to Treatment Access Center (“TASC”) monitoring.1  TASC 
requires the probationer to report to regular court appointments so the court 
can review the probationer’s progress.  On February 3, 2006, McGeehan 
appeared before Superior Court for one of his regularly scheduled 
appointments.  The TASC case manager reported to the court that 
McGeehan tested positive for cocaine several days earlier.2  Additionally, 
the TASC manager recommended that McGeehan be ordered to attend the 
Crest Weekend Intervention Program for four consecutive weekends.3   
3) 
The Superior Court then gave McGeehan the choice of either 
four weeks of weekend interventions or a “full-blown violation of 
probation.”4  McGeehan chose the weekend interventions.5  The Superior 
Court then sentenced McGeehan to 18 months at Level V, suspended for one 
year at Level III and required McGeehan to participate in four consecutive 
weekend interventions at the Crest Weekend Intervention Program 
beginning February 11, 2006.  
                                          
 
1 TASC is designed to “coordinate the provision of substance abuse evaluation and 
treatment by public and private providers to criminal defendants . . . .”  Del. Code Ann. 
tit. 11, § 6582(c). 
2 The test was administered on January 30, 2006.  
3 McGeehan signed the intervention contract the day before the court appointment, so he 
was aware of the test results at least one day before the hearing.  
4 (“Let me ask you this.  Do you want to resolve it that way [going to four weekend-long 
interventions], or do you want to set it down for a full-blown violation of probation.”).   
5 McGeehan actually signed the contract to attend the weekend interventions on February 
2, 2006.   
 
3
4) 
On Saturday, February 11, 2006, the first day he was supposed 
to attend the intervention, McGeehan called the Crest Program and left a 
message explaining that he was feeling ill and would not be attending.  Crest 
returned McGeehan’s telephone call, but he did not answer.  He also did not 
call back in response to Crest’s voice message.  McGeehan reported to his 
probation officer on Monday, February 13, and explained he was ill over the 
weekend.6  He was arrested for failing to report to Crest in violation of his 
probation.   
5) 
McGeehan contested his probation violation in the Superior 
Court on February 21, 2006.  The Superior Court found him in violation of 
probation because he did not appear and had not produced any medical 
testimony to support his excuse.  The Superior Court revoked his probation 
and sentenced him to one-year imprisonment at Level V suspended on 
completion of a Level V Key substance abuse treatment for the balance of 
the term at Level IV Crest and Level IV Crest Aftercare.   
6) 
McGeehan’s first argument is that the Superior Court erred at 
the February 3, 2006, violation of probation hearing.  According to 
McGeehan, he was denied his right to due process because he was not 
represented by counsel and not given proper notice of the hearing and the 
                                          
 
6  McGeehan’s probation officer testified that he appeared to be “congested” and “was 
coughing little bit” but did not appear to have any “physical illness.”  
 
4
charge against him.  McGeehan’s claim that he did not have notice of the 
hearing or possible weekend intervention sanctions is not supported by the 
record.  McGeehan was advised before the February 3, 2006, hearing that he 
had tested positive for cocaine.  In addition, McGeehan knew that the 
weekend interventions were a possible sanction, as evidenced by the fact 
that he signed the intervention contract on February 2, 2006, the day before 
the hearing. 
7) 
A probationer has certain minimal due process rights at a 
violation of probation hearing.7  The right to counsel, however, is limited to 
situations when “the probationer raises a timely and colorable claim  (i) that 
he or she has not committed the alleged violation; or (ii) there are substantial 
and complex reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and which 
make revocation inappropriate.”8    McGeehan’s revocation does not fit into 
either category.  He did not dispute using cocaine.  There were no substantial 
and complex reasons which justified or mitigated the violation or made 
revocation inappropriate.   
8) 
McGeehan’s second argument is that he did not know that he 
would need documented proof of his illness in order to abstain from 
                                          
 
7 Sparks v. State, 2000 WL 72642 (Del. Supr.) (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 
789 (1973).   
8 Sparks v. State, 2000 WL 72642 (citing Jones v. State, 560 A.2d 1056, 1058 (Del. 
1989). 
 
5
attending an intervention.  He points to the lack of instruction in the 
intervention contract as to what steps are necessary to excuse him from 
attending a weekend intervention.  
9) 
Probation is an act of grace and the trial judge “has broad 
discretionary power when deciding whether or not to revoke probation.”9  
McGeehan failed to attend the Crest intervention program contrary to an 
express order that he do so.  He did not answer the telephone or return the 
call from Crest.  The lack of medical documentation was properly 
considered in assessing the credibility of McGeehan’s assertion that he was 
too ill to attend.  This was his third violation of probation.  Given this 
history, the Superior Court found that “this is a gentleman who violates 
probation.”  The record reflects the Superior Court did not abuse its 
discretion in revoking McGeehan’s probation.     
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment 
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
9 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006).