Title: White v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 333, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 24, 2002

1White appears to argue that he was wrongfully forced out of the Level IV
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program and sent to the Sussex County VOP Center,
where he was unable to participate in their activities due to severe back pain.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
REGINAL D. WHITE,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 333, 2002
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Sussex County
§  Cr.A. No. VS01-09-0757-01
§
§
Submitted: July 8, 2002
  Decided:   September 24, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 24th day of September 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Reginal D. White, claims error in the
Superior Court’s finding of a violation of probation (“VOP”).1  The plaintiff-
appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the
2SUPR. CT. R. 25(a).
3Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987); SUPR. CT. R. 9(e) (ii) and 14(e).
-2-
Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of White’s opening
brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We agree and AFFIRM.
(2)
At a VOP hearing on May 24, 2002, the Superior Court
determined that White had violated his probation in connection with his April
3, 2002 conviction for Delivery of Cocaine.  The Superior Court revoked
White’s probation and reimposed his sentence of 6 years incarceration at Level
V, to be suspended for 1 year at Level IV Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment Program after successful completion of the Key Program at Level
V, with the balance of the sentence to be suspended for 3 years at Level III
Aftercare.
(3)
The rules of this Court direct all parties to order a transcript and
to include in their appendix those portions of the record relevant to any claims
on appeal.  As the appellant, White has the burden of producing “such portions
of the . . . transcript as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate
account of the context in which the claim of error occurred” and “all evidence
relevant to the challenged finding or conclusion.”3  
-3-
(4)
The record in this case reflects that White neither designated in his
notice of appeal nor made any arrangements to obtain the transcript of his May
24, 2002 VOP hearing.  In fact, his notice of appeal states “No transcripts
needed.”  The lack of a transcript precludes a review of the evidence presented
at the hearing and, therefore, precludes this Court from determining whether the
Superior Court’s finding of a VOP was erroneous, as White claims. 
(5)
It is manifest on the face of White’s opening brief that this appeal
is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly
there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), the motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice