Title: Miller v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 69, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 8, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MALIK X. MILLER, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 69, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0810020682 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 17, 2013 
Decided:  July 8, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of July 2013, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
Malik Miller, the defendant-below (“Miller”), appeals from the 
Superior Court’s sentence for his second violation of probation (“VOP”).  The 
State of Delaware moves to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Miller’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Miller pled guilty in June 2009 to one count of 
Assault in the First Degree.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced him to a 
total period of twenty-five years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after 
 
2
serving three years for twenty-two years at Level IV Work Release, to be 
suspended after serving eight months at Work Release for twenty-one years and 
four months at Level IV Home Confinement, to be suspended after serving six 
months at Home Confinement for eighteen months at Level III probation.  Miller 
did not appeal from that sentence.  In November 2011, Miller was charged with 
violating his probation.  The Superior Court sentenced him to six months at Level 
V incarceration or the VOP Center and, upon completion, to restart the Level IV 
portion of his original sentence.  We affirmed the VOP adjudication and sentence 
on appeal.1 
 
(3) 
In November 2012, Miller was charged with his second VOP for 
failing to report to his probation officer and for possessing drugs and a firearm.  A 
contested VOP hearing was held on January 16, 2013.  The Superior Court found 
that Miller had again violated the terms of his probation and immediately 
sentenced him, effective November 18, 2012, to twenty-two years at Level V 
incarceration to be suspended after serving eight years in prison for eighteen 
months at Level II probation.  This appeal followed. 
 
(4) 
On appeal, Miller raises four arguments.  First, he claims that the 
State improperly presented hearsay testimony and denied him the right to confront 
an adverse witness.  Second, Miller asserts that the State’s evidence was 
                                                 
1 Miller v. State, 2012 WL 2580186 (Del. July 3, 2012). 
 
3
insufficient to establish a VOP.  Third, he argues that the trial judge erred in 
finding that Miller was in possession of drugs or a firearm.  Finally, Miller 
contends that the Superior Court judge had a closed mind and imposed a cruel and 
unusual punishment based on false aggravating factors. 
 
(5) 
After careful consideration, we find no merit to Miller’s appeal.  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.2  A preponderance 
of the 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.”3  The transcript of the VOP hearing in this case reflects 
that Miller admitted to the charged violation of failing to report to his probation 
officer.  That admission alone is sufficient evidence to justify the Superior Court’s 
finding of a violation.4   
 
(5) 
Once the Superior Court found Miller in violation of the terms of his 
probation, it was authorized to require Miller to serve the entire length of his 
suspended prison term in jail.5  Thus, the Superior Court, as a matter of law, could 
                                                 
2 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
3 Id. (quoting Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006)). 
4 Jenkins v. State, 8 A.3d 1147, 1154 (Del. 2010). 
5 Gamble v. State, 728 A.2d 1171, 1172 (Del. 1999). 
 
4
have sentenced Miller to serve in prison the entire twenty one years and six months 
remaining on his original sentence.6  The Superior Court, however, only imposed 
an eight-year prison term for Miller’s second VOP, despite Miller’s failure to 
present any evidence in mitigation.7  Under these circumstances, we find nothing in 
the record to support Miller’s suggestion that the Superior Court judge sentenced 
him with a closed mind or that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual 
punishment. 
 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice 
                                                 
6 The State suggests that the Superior Court’s sentence for Miller’s second VOP may not have 
properly credited Miller for the six months he spent incarcerated on his first VOP.  Miller did not 
raise this argument on appeal.  Accordingly, we do not address it.  To the extent Miller may not 
have received proper credit for all the time he has spent incarcerated on this charge, he may file a 
motion seeking that credit time in the Superior Court. 
7 See Jenkins v. State, 8 A.3d at 1155.