Title: Walley v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 200, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 4, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYRONE D. WALLEY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 200, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN00-12-0999 
§  Cr. ID 0011018708 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 5, 2004 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: May 4, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This fourth day of May 2004, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Tyrone Walley, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s sentence for his second violation of probation.  The sole issue 
Walley raises on appeal is that the Superior Court’s finding of a probation violation 
was not supported by competent evidence.  We find no merit to this contention.  
Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Walley pled guilty in March 2001 to felony 
theft.  The Superior Court sentenced him to two years imprisonment, suspended 
entirely for two years of decreasing levels of probation.  In June 2001, Walley was 
 
2
found guilty of violating probation.  A second violation report was filed in January 
2002.  Walley was not located, however, until March 2003.  On March 11, 2003, 
Walley’s probation officer filed an administrative warrant.  The Superior Court 
scheduled a contested VOP hearing on March 26, 2003.  Walley was represented 
by counsel at the hearing.   
(3) 
Walley’s probation officer testified at the hearing.  He testified that 
the violation charges stemmed from Walley’s failure to report to the Delaware 
probation office for an extended period of time, his failure to report his change of 
address, his failure to report new criminal charges, and his failure to maintain full-
time employment.  Walley also testified at the hearing.  He did not deny failing to 
report to Delaware probation authorities, nor did he deny difficulties maintaining 
full-time employment.  He asserted, however, that his Delaware probation had 
been transferred to New Jersey authorities and, therefore, he was not required to 
report to Delaware authorities.  Furthermore, Walley maintained that his 
subsequent criminal charges all had been dismissed by New Jersey authorities.  
Walley’s probation officer, on the other hand, contended that Walley’s Delaware 
probation had never been transferred to New Jersey and, in fact, Walley’s New 
Jersey probation had been transferred to Delaware authorities.  
(4) 
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Superior Court found competent 
evidence that Walley had violated his probation and sentenced him to one year 
 
3
imprisonment. Following completion of the prison term, the Superior Court 
ordered that Walley be discharged from probation as unimproved.   
(5) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions on 
appeal and the record below, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior 
Court must be affirmed.  Walley’s claim that his probation supervision was 
transferred to New Jersey is unsubstantiated and clearly was contradicted by 
Walley’s probation officer at the hearing.  Under the circumstances, we find 
sufficient, competent evidence, including Walley’s own testimony, to support the 
Superior Court’s conclusion that Walley had violated the terms of his probation.*  
Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
* Brown v. State, 249 A.2d 269, 272 (Del. 1968).