Title: Nelson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 668, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 11, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRYSHAWN NELSON,  
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 668, 2012 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0611018558 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 10, 2013 
Decided: 
July 11, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 11th day of July 2013, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 27, 2007, the appellant, Bryshawn Nelson, was 
sentenced on a drug conviction to eight years of Level V imprisonment, 
suspended after three and one-half years for decreasing levels of supervision, 
including probation.  Between October 20, 2011 and September 27, 2012, 
Nelson was convicted four times of violating probation (VOP) and was 
resentenced.  This appeal is from Nelson’s conviction and resentencing on 
December 13, 2012 for his fifth VOP.  
2 
 
(2) 
Nelson’s fifth VOP was initiated by an administrative warrant 
filed by his probation officer on November 29, 2012.  The administrative 
warrant alleged that Nelson was found with crack cocaine during a pat down 
on November 27, 2012.  It also alleged that Nelson violated curfew on 
October 31, 2012, and had not maintained employment, which was required 
as a condition of probation. 
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Nelson claims that he had 
inadequate notice of the VOP, and that the “technical” violations with which 
he was charged should not have triggered a revocation of probation.  Nelson 
requests a reduction of sentence on that basis that the eighteen-month 
sentence imposed by the Superior Court exceeded the twelve-month 
sentence recommended by his probation officer. 
(4) 
Nelson’s first two claims are without merit.  The administrative 
warrant filed on November 29, 2012, a copy of which is attached to Nelson’s 
opening brief, provided written notice of the VOP.1  The Superior Court has 
broad discretionary power when deciding whether or not to revoke 
probation.2 
                                          
 
1 See Loper v. State, 2003 WL 21434899 (Del. June 18, 2003) (concluding that written 
violation report constituted proper notice of the reasons for the VOP). 
2 See Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006) (citing Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 
159, 160 (Del. 2006)). 
3 
 
(5) 
Nelson’s request on appeal for a reduction of sentence is 
unavailing.    The Court considers a timely-filed appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of a motion for reduction of sentence.3  The Court does not 
consider a request for reduction of sentence in the first instance.4  As a 
general matter, the Superior Court is not obligated to follow a sentencing 
recommendation made by a probation officer.5   
(6) 
The Court’s appellate review of a sentence generally is limited 
to whether the sentence exceeds the statutory limits.6  In this case, the record 
reflects that Nelson was sentenced on his fourth VOP to three years at Level 
V suspended immediately for one year of probation.  Less than three months 
later, Nelson was sentenced on his fifth VOP to three years at Level V 
suspended after eighteen months with no probation to follow.  Because the 
sentence imposed for Nelson’s fifth VOP was well within the balance 
remaining from the sentence imposed on his fourth VOP, it appears that the 
sentence imposed for the fifth VOP was within statutory limits.7 
                                          
 
3 Weber v. State, 971 A.2d 135, 160-61 (Del. 2009). 
4 See Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)-(4) (conferring jurisdiction on Supreme Court to 
determine matters of appeal). 
5 See Lancaster v. State, 2010 WL 4851829 (Del. Nov. 29, 2010) (citing Cruz v. State, 
990 A.2d 409, 417 (Del. 2010)).  
6 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
7 See Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4334(c) (Supp. 2013) (providing that “[i]f the violation is 
established, the court may continue or revoke the probation or suspension of sentence, 
and may require the probation violator to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser 
4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                                                                                             
 
sentence, and, if imposition of sentence was suspended, may impose any sentence which 
might originally have been imposed”).