Title: Prattis v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 102, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 23, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN PRATTIS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 102, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0708019882 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: August 2, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 23, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 23rd day of August 2012, 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, John Prattis, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s February 23, 2012 violation of probation (“VOP”) 
sentencing order.  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved 
to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on 
 
2
the face of the opening brief that this appeal is without merit.1  We agree and 
affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in March 2008, Prattis 
entered a plea of guilty to Burglary in the Second Degree.  He was sentenced 
to 8 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 18 months for 2 
years of Level III probation.2  One of the conditions of his probationary 
sentence was evaluation for substance abuse and follow-up treatment.  
Prattis did not file a direct appeal, but has unsuccessfully filed several 
motions for sentence modification in the Superior Court. 
 
(3) 
On February 23, 2012, Prattis’ VOP hearing was held in 
Superior Court.  The transcript of the hearing reflects that Prattis’ counsel 
stated at the beginning of the hearing that Prattis admitted he used crack 
cocaine on two occasions in violation of the conditions of his probation.  
The Superior Court also expressed concern regarding Prattis’ lack of a stable 
living situation and his continued need for drug treatment.  The Superior 
Court found Prattis in violation of his probation and sentenced him to 6 
years at Level V, with credit for 16 days previously served, to be suspended 
upon successful completion of the Key Program for 1 year of Level IV 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Prattis’ sentencing order was modified in January 2009 solely to revise the payees on 
his restitution obligation.   
 
3
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment, in turn to be suspended upon 
completion of the Level IV Crest Program for 1 year of Level III Crest 
Aftercare.   
 
(4) 
In his appeal from his VOP sentencing order, Prattis claims that 
the Superior Court a) erroneously found him in violation of his probation 
because the crack pipe that served as the basis for the VOP did not belong to 
him; and b) should have given him an opportunity to enter the Brandywine 
Counseling program before imposing a Level V sentence. 
 
(5) 
Prattis’ first claim is that the Superior Court erred when it found 
him in violation of his probation.  It is well-settled that probation is an “act 
of grace” and that the Superior Court has broad discretionary power to 
decide whether or not to revoke probation.3  The decision to revoke 
probation requires only “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.”4  Prattis’ admission, through his 
counsel at the VOP hearing, that he had used crack cocaine twice in 
violation of the conditions of his probation was sufficient to satisfy that 
                                                 
3 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006) (citing Brown v. State, 249 A.2d 269, 
271 (Del. 1968)). 
4 Id. (citing Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006)). 
 
4
standard.5  As such, we conclude that the Superior Court neither erred nor 
abused its discretion when it found that Prattis had committed a VOP. 
 
(6) 
Prattis’ second claim is that the Superior Court should have 
sentenced him to the Brandywine Counseling program rather than to Level 
V.  It is well-settled that, once a defendant violates the terms of his 
probation, the Superior Court has the authority to require him to serve the 
sentence originally imposed, or any lesser sentence.6  There is no evidence 
that the Superior Court’s sentence exceeded Prattis’ original Level V 
sentence, nor does Prattis so allege.  As such, we conclude that the Superior 
Court neither erred nor abused its discretion when it imposed the sentence it 
did upon its finding of a VOP. 
 
(7) 
It is manifest on the face of the 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, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
 
                                                 
5 The record also reflects that Prattis notified Probation and Parole in February 2012 that 
he had relapsed on crack cocaine. 
6 State v. Sloman, 886 A.2d 1257, 1260 (Del. 2005) (citing Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, 
§4334(c)). 
 
5
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice