Title: Grzybowski v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 105, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 27, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM E. GRZYBOWSKI, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 105, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0709027893 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 29, 2012 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: June  27, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of June 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, William Grzybowski, filed this appeal from 
the Superior Court’s sentence for his second violation of probation (VOP).  The 
State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground 
that it is manifest on the face of Grzybowski’s opening brief that his appeal is 
without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Grzybowski pled guilty in January 2008 to 
one count each of possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, third 
degree burglary, and second degree conspiracy.  The Superior Court sentenced 
 
2
Grzybowski to a total period of thirteen years at Level V incarceration to be 
suspended after serving three years for decreasing levels of supervision.  He did 
not appeal from his sentence.  In October 2011, Grzybowski was found in violation 
of the terms of his probation and was continued on probation.  Among other 
conditions of his VOP sentence, Grzybowski was ordered to have no unsupervised 
contact with any child under the age of eighteen unless the minor’s parent or 
grandparent was present.  Grzybowski did not appeal his VOP conviction or 
sentence.   
 
(3) 
In February 2012, Grzybowski was found in violation of his probation 
for a second time.  Grzybowski admitted before the Superior Court that he had 
violated his probation by using drugs, by failing to attend counseling, by 
absconding, and by having unsupervised contact with a minor.  The Superior Court 
sentenced him to a total period of ten years at Level V incarceration (with credit 
for 37 days served) suspended upon successful completion of the Family Problems 
Program for probation.  Grzybowski now appeals that sentence. 
 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Grzybowski argues that his VOP 
sentence is illegal because his probation officer never informed him that he was 
prohibited from having unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of 18.  We 
find no merit to this contention. 
 
(5) 
The Superior Court’s first VOP sentencing order, dated October 7, 
2011, explicitly prohibited Grzybowski from having unsupervised contact with 
 
3
minors under the age of eighteen.  We thus find no merit to the contention that he 
was unaware of the no contact order.  Moreover, at the second VOP hearing 
Grzybowski admitted to having a relationship with a seventeen-year-old.  He did 
not contend at the VOP hearing that he was unaware that this contact was 
prohibited.  He also admitted to violating his probation by using drugs, failing to 
attend counseling, and absconding.  
 
(6) 
In a VOP hearing, the State is only required to prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms of his 
probation.1  A preponderance of evidence means “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.”2  Based on the record presented, 
we conclude that the evidence was more than sufficient to establish Grzybowski’s 
VOP by a preponderance of the evidence.   
 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
2 Id. (quoting Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006)).