Title: Edwards v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 231, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 24, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
GEORGE H. EDWARDS, JR., 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 231, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. 00-08-0209-04 
§                   00-08-0211-04 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 22, 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, George H. Edwards, claims error in the 
Superior Court’s finding of a violation of probation (“VOP”).  The plaintiff-
appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the 
 
 
-2- 
Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Edwards’ opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and AFFIRM. 
(2) 
In this appeal, Edwards claims that there was no basis for the 
Superior Court’s finding of a VOP.  He contends that his probation officer was 
“out to get him” and lied to the Superior Court about his testing positive for 
cocaine.  He also contends that there was a valid reason why he missed a curfew 
check, as his attorney explained at the VOP hearing. 
                                                 
1SUPR. CT. R. 25(a). 
 
 
-3- 
(3) 
The record reflects that, on March 5, 2002, the Superior Court 
found Edwards in violation of his probation but deferred sentencing on the 
violations.2  While Edwards has not provided this Court with a transcript of the 
March 5, 2002 hearing, a February 13, 2002 VOP report, which appears to have 
provided the basis for the finding of a VOP, reflects that Edwards twice failed to 
report to his Halfway House, failed to report to a Crest Aftercare meeting and 
tested positive for alcohol.  On April 16, 2002, the Superior Court sentenced 
Edwards to 4 years and 9 months incarceration at Level V, to be suspended upon 
successful completion of the Key Program for the balance of the Level V time at 
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program and Level III Aftercare.3    
(4) 
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, Edwards has the burden of producing “such portions 
of the . . . transcript as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate 
                                                 
2These were Edwards’ fourth VOP’s in connection with his October 2000 convictions 
for Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine and Resisting Arrest. 
3On April 12, 2002, a VOP report was filed in the Superior Court reflecting that 
Edwards had tested positive for cocaine.  The record reflects that this incident did not form 
the basis for the Superior Court’s sentence on April 16, 2002 and that the report was later 
withdrawn. 
 
 
-4- 
account of the context in which the claim of error occurred” and “all evidence 
relevant to the challenged finding or conclusion.”4   
                                                 
4Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987); SUPR. CT. R. 9(e) (ii) and 14(e). 
(5) 
The record reflects that Edwards designated and ordered only the 
transcript from the April 16, 2002 hearing.  For that reason, only that transcript 
appears in the record.  To the extent that Edwards challenges the basis for the 
Superior Court’s finding of a VOP at the hearing on March 5, 2002, the lack of a 
transcript precludes us from reviewing that claim.  The record that has been 
provided to this Court, including the transcript of the April 16, 2002 sentencing 
hearing, reflects no abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in 
sentencing Edwards for the VOP that it had found on March 5, 2002. 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of Edwards’ 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. 
 
 
-5- 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The 
judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.5 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ E. Norman Veasey 
Chief Justice  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5On July 12, 2002, Edwards filed a motion for bail in this Court.  The motion, which 
we deem to be an application for a certificate of reasonable doubt, is untimely because it was 
not filed within 30 days of the Superior Court judgment, is procedurally improper because it 
was not presented to the Superior Court in the first instance and is without merit because 
there is no reasonable ground to believe that there is error in the record.  DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 
11, § 4502.  Therefore, the motion is denied.