Title: Piper v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 373, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 10, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT PIPER, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 373, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. S2301008437  
§                      S2301007516 
§                      S2301005855 
§                       
§                       
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   February 16, 2024 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 10, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening and supplemental opening 
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Robert Piper, filed this appeal from his sentencing for 
violations of probation (“VOPs”).  The State has moved to affirm the judgment 
below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Piper’s opening brief that his 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
On July 26, 2023, Piper resolved multiple charges in three criminal 
cases by pleading guilty to third-degree criminal trespassing, three counts of 
possession of shoplifter’s tools, three counts of shoplifting property worth less than 
2 
 
$1500, and noncompliance with conditions of release.  The Superior Court imposed 
an aggregate sentence of thirteen years of imprisonment, suspended after the 169 
days that Piper had already served for one year of probation, with GPS monitoring 
for the first six months.  The Superior Court also sentenced Piper to pay a fine of 
$100 and ordered him to pay restitution to Lowe’s and Home Depot and to have no 
contact with any Lowe’s or Home Depot location. 
(3) 
On August 15, 2023, a probation officer filed a VOP report alleging 
that Piper had violated probation by failing to report to probation as required, leaving 
the state, and residing in Maryland without reporting a change of address.  The report 
also alleged that Piper had allowed his GPS monitor to lose its charge and had visited 
a Food Lion store in violation of a no-contact order in another case. 
(4) 
At a VOP hearing on September 22, 2023, Piper admitted that he had 
violated probation by leaving the state and allowing his GPS monitor to lose its 
charge.  Based on his admission, the court found Piper in violation of probation.  The 
court then heard remarks from the probation officer, Officer Hopkins, regarding 
sentencing.  Officer Hopkins stated that another officer who fitted Piper with the 
GPS monitor explained the requirement that Piper not leave the state, but that Piper 
“literally left our office and went to [Maryland].”  Officer Hopkins further stated that 
he contacted Piper by telephone and told him to return to Delaware, but Piper did 
not return.  The officer also stated that Piper was breaking no-contact orders “daily” 
3 
 
while in Maryland and that after allowing the GPS monitor to lose its charge, Piper 
cut off the anklet.  The court also heard from Piper, who again admitted leaving the 
state but disputed statements that Officer Hopkins made indicating that Piper had 
engaged in shoplifting activities while in Maryland.  After hearing from Officer 
Hopkins and Piper, the Superior Court sentenced Piper to a total of twelve years and 
five months of imprisonment, suspended after one year and completion of a program 
at DOC discretion for decreasing levels of supervision. 
(5) 
On appeal to this Court, Piper challenges the sentences imposed for the 
VOPs, arguing that (i) they require him to serve more time than sentencing 
guidelines1 establish for “technical” violations of probation without sufficiently 
justifying the departure and (ii) the court had prejudged the case.  Piper also asserts 
a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which we will not consider for the first 
time in this appeal.2 
(6) 
 “It is well-established that appellate review of sentences is extremely 
limited.”3  Our review of a sentence generally ends upon a determination that the 
sentence is within the statutory limits prescribed by the legislature.4  If the sentence 
falls within the statutory limits, we consider only whether it is based on factual 
 
1 We infer that Piper is referring to sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing 
Accountability Commission (“SENTAC”). 
2 E.g., Witty v. State, 2022 WL 3206086, at *1 (Del. Aug. 8, 2022); Erwin v. State, 2019 WL 
6833859, at *1 (Del. Dec. 13, 2019). 
3 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006). 
4 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
4 
 
predicates that are false, impermissible, or lack minimal reliability; judicial 
vindictiveness or bias; or a closed mind.5  When sentencing a defendant for a VOP, 
the trial court may impose any period of incarceration up to and including the 
balance of the Level V time remaining to be served on the original sentence.6  
(7) 
Piper does not contend that the Level V time imposed for the VOPs 
exceeds the Level V time remaining on his original sentences.  To the extent that 
Piper asserts arguments based on the SENTAC guidelines, those guidelines are non-
binding and do not provide a basis for appeal if the sentence falls within prescribed 
statutory limits.7  Moreover, the sentencing judge’s remarks during sentencing 
indicate that the court imposed the Level V time because Piper’s repetitive criminal 
conduct, previous violations of probation in other cases, and immediate violation in 
this case demonstrated that he was not amenable to lower levels of supervision.  As 
for Piper’s contention that the court had prejudged the case, the transcript reflects 
that (i) the judge expressed his familiarity with Piper’s criminal history based on 
having sentenced Piper for the underlying convictions less than two months earlier, 
and (ii) the judge had conferred with court staff to ensure that the court gave Piper 
any credit for time served that was due.  Piper has not established any basis to 
 
5 Kurzmann, 903 A.2d at 714. 
6 11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 
7 Mayes, 604 A.2d at 845. 
5 
 
conclude that his VOP sentences exceeded the Level V time remaining on his 
original sentences or are otherwise subject to reversal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      Chief Justice