Title: Johnson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 553, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 18, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JERRON JOHNSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 553, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0611015876 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 12, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 18, 2010 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 18th day of May 2010, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1)   The appellant, Jerron Johnson, filed this appeal from his Superior 
Court sentence for a violation of probation (VOP).  We find no merit to the 
issues Johnson raises on appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Johnson pled guilty on August 9, 2007 
to one count of second degree burglary.  The Superior Court immediately 
sentenced him to five years at Level V imprisonment to be suspended after 
serving one year for eighteen months at Level III probation.  On March 4, 
 
2 
2009, during his probationary term, Johnson was arrested on new criminal 
charges1 and, as a result, also was charged with a VOP.  The Superior Court 
found Johnson guilty of the VOP charge on April 29, 2009 and sentenced 
him to four years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving 
three years for one year at Level III probation.   
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Johnson argues that the Superior 
Court erred in holding his VOP hearing before a judge who was not the 
original sentencing judge.  Johnson also contends that his VOP sentence was 
an abuse of discretion.  We disagree.  
(4) 
A probationer is not entitled to a hearing before a specific 
judge.2  Johnson received a prompt VOP hearing before a judge of the 
Superior Court, which satisfied the due process requirements of Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 32.1.3  Moreover, the Superior Court’s VOP sentence 
did not exceed the term that was suspended on Johnson’s original sentence.4  
Accordingly, the VOP sentence was legal, and we find no abuse of the 
Superior Court’s discretion.  
                                                 
1 Johnson pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver heroin on June 16, 2009. 
2 Mayfield v. State, 2003 WL 1711946 (Del. Mar. 28, 2003). 
3 Id. 
4 Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1045-46 (Del. 2005). 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice