Title: Witty v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 56, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 8, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSHUA WITTY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§    No. 56, 2022 
§ 
§    Court Below—Superior Court 
§    of the State of Delaware 
§   
§    Cr. ID Nos. S2008002080 
§                        S1501019096 
§                        S1508008541 
§                        S1808020827 
 
Submitted:  June 6, 2022 
Decided:  August 8, 2022 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Joshua Witty, filed this appeal from his sentencing for a 
violation of probation (“VOP”).  The State has moved to affirm the judgment below 
on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Witty’s opening brief that his appeal 
is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In 2016, Witty pleaded guilty to drug dealing (Tier 4 Heroin), and the 
Superior Court sentenced him to fifteen years of imprisonment, suspended for 
eighteen months of Level III probation.  Also in 2016, Witty pleaded guilty to 
possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”), and the Superior Court 
2 
 
sentenced him to eight years of imprisonment, suspended after three years for one 
year of Level IV home confinement.  In 2018, Witty pleaded guilty to drug dealing 
(Tier 2 Cocaine), and the Superior Court sentenced him to eight years of 
imprisonment, suspended after successful completion of the Level V Key drug 
treatment program for decreasing levels of supervision.   
(3) 
In 2020, Witty pleaded guilty to possession of heroin and resisting 
arrest.  On September 24, 2020, the Superior Court sentenced him for those offenses 
to a total of sixteen years of imprisonment, suspended for Level III probation.  Also 
on September 24, 2020, the Superior Court found Witty in violation of probation and 
imposed VOP sentences for the 2016 and 2018 drug dealing and PFBPP offenses.  
The 2020 VOP sentence imposed a total of fourteen years and one month of 
imprisonment, suspended after one year for decreasing levels of supervision. 
(4) 
On September 9, 2021, a probation officer filed an administrative 
warrant alleging that Witty was in violation of probation.  The warrant alleged that 
Witty had been transported to a medical facility for treatment for an apparent 
overdose and that Witty was found in possession of marijuana and approximately 
180 bags of heroin.  At a hearing on January 28, 2022, the Superior Court found 
Witty in violation of probation and imposed VOP sentences relating to the offenses 
of which Witty was convicted in 2016, 2018, and 2020.  The corrected VOP sentence 
order dated February 8, 2022, which is the subject of this appeal, sentenced Witty to 
3 
 
a total of twenty-eight years and seven months of imprisonment, suspended after one 
year for decreasing levels of supervision. 
(5) 
Witty has appealed from the February 8, 2022, VOP sentence order.  
Witty’s first argument on appeal is that his counsel was ineffective.  We will not 
consider this claim for the first time on direct appeal.1 
(6) 
Witty also argues that the VOP sentence is unjust and that the “five 
months that [he] waited for court . . . did not go to time served.”  After careful 
consideration of the record, we find no reversible error.  “It is well-established that 
appellate review of sentences is extremely limited.”2  Our review of a sentence 
generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within the statutory limits 
prescribed by the legislature.3  If the sentence falls within the statutory limits, “we 
consider only whether it is based on factual predicates which are false, 
impermissible, or lack minimal reliability, judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a closed 
mind.”4  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.5   
(7) 
The 2022 VOP sentence at issue in this appeal was within the applicable 
 
1 E.g., Erwin v. State, 2019 WL 6833859, at *1 (Del. Dec. 13, 2019). 
2 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006) (citation omitted). 
3 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
4 Kurzmann, 903 A.2d at 714. 
5 11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 
4 
 
limits.  On September 24, 2020, in orders from which Witty did not appeal, the 
Superior Court sentenced Witty to (i) a total of sixteen years of imprisonment, 
suspended for Level III probation, for possession of heroin and resisting arrest, and 
(ii) a total of fourteen years and one month of imprisonment, suspended after one 
year for decreasing levels of supervision, for VOPs relating to the 2016 and 2018 
convictions.  Together, the sentences imposed in September 2020 totaled thirty years 
and one month of imprisonment, suspended after one year for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  Assuming that Witty served the unsuspended year and, as he contends 
on appeal, an additional five months toward those sentences before the 2022 VOP 
adjudication and sentence, it appears that the 2022 VOP sentence—a total of twenty-
eight years and seven months, suspended after one year for decreasing levels of 
supervision—was within the balance of the Level V time remaining on Witty’s 
sentences.  To the extent that Witty claims that the sentence imposed for any 
individual offense exceeds the balance remaining for that offense, he has not 
sufficiently identified the purported error, nor has our review of the record revealed 
any such error. 
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/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice