Title: Williams v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 326, 2021
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 4, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTHONY S. WILLIAMS, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 326, 2021 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1804003122 (K) 
§                                                               
§               
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 6, 2021 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: February 4, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 
to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Anthony S. Williams filed this appeal from a Superior Court order 
sentencing him for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  The State has filed a motion 
to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Williams’ opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In 2018, a Superior Court jury found Williams guilty of one count of 
fourth-degree rape.  Following a presentence investigation, the Superior Court 
sentenced Williams to fifteen years of Level V incarceration, suspended after two 
years for two years of Level III probation.  As part of his sentence, Williams was  
2 
 
required to register as a sex offender under 11 Del. C. § 4120.  We affirmed 
Williams’ conviction and sentence on direct appeal.1 
(3) 
In January 2021, Williams was found guilty of violating the terms of 
his probation.  The Superior Court re-sentenced Williams to thirteen years of Level 
V incarceration, suspended after ninety days followed by eighteen months of Level 
III supervision.  We affirmed Williams’ VOP conviction and sentence on appeal.2 
(4) 
In May 2021, Williams’ probation officer filed a VOP report, alleging 
that Williams had violated the terms of his probation by failing to report to his 
probation officer on three separate occasions.  On June 21, 2021, Williams was 
charged with failure to register as a sex offender.  As a result of the new charge, 
Williams’ probation officer filed an addendum to his initial VOP report, alleging 
that Williams had also violated the terms of his probation by “commit[ting] a new 
criminal offense … during the supervision period.”  Following a contested VOP 
hearing on September 16, 2021, the Superior Court found Williams guilty of a VOP 
and re-sentenced him to twelve years and nine months of Level V incarceration, 
suspended after six months followed by decreasing levels of supervision.  This 
appeal followed. 
 
1 Williams v. State, 2020 WL 388431 (Del. Jan. 22, 2020). 
2 Williams v. State, 2021 WL 1667377 (Del. Apr. 26, 2021). 
3 
 
(5) 
Williams essentially raises two issues on appeal.  Williams argues that 
(i) the evidence presented at the VOP hearing was insufficient to support a finding 
that he violated the terms of his probation and (ii) he received ineffective assistance 
of counsel in connection with the VOP proceedings.   
(6) 
After careful consideration, we find no merit to Williams’ appeal.  As 
a preliminary matter, this Court has consistently held that we will not consider 
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on direct appeal,3 
and we decline to do so here. 
 
(7) 
Turning to Williams’ argument that the evidence presented did not 
support a VOP, this Court has held many times that it is the appellant’s obligation to 
supply those portions of the transcript of the proceedings below that are necessary 
to give the Court a fair and accurate account of the context in which the alleged 
errors arose.4  Williams did not supply the Court with the VOP hearing transcript.  
Without it, the Court has no basis to review Williams’ claim that the evidence 
presented did not support a VOP.  However, we note that although Williams claims 
that he was not told that he had to report to probation on the dates specified in the 
initial VOP report, William acknowledges that his probation officer testified at the 
VOP hearing that Williams had failed to report his change of address as required by 
 
3 Desmond v. State, 654 A. 2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 
4 Trioche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987). 
4 
 
the sex-offender-registration statute.  Probation is an “act of grace,” and the Superior 
Court has broad discretion in deciding whether to revoke a defendant’s probation.5  
In a VOP hearing, the State is only required to prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the defendant violated the terms of his probation.6  A preponderance 
of evidence is “some competent evidence” to “reasonably satisfy the judge that the 
conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the conditions of 
probation.”7  Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the Superior 
Court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Williams’ probation. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to affirm 
be GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice  
 
 
5 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
6 Id. 
7 Id.