Court Opinion

ID: 9397810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 16:04:21.965165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:27.920067
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

  BYRON WHITE,                         §
                                       §   No. 123, 2022
        Defendant Below,               §
        Appellant,                     §   Court Below–Superior Court
                                       §   of the State of Delaware
        v.                             §
                                       §   Cr. ID No. 1802004471 (K)
  STATE OF DELAWARE,                   §
                                       §
        Appellee.                      §

                         Submitted: March 24, 2023
                         Decided:   May 25, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

                                     ORDER

      After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears

to the Court that:

      (1)    The appellant, Byron White, appeals the Superior Court’s order

sentencing him for a violation of probation (“VOP”). After careful consideration,

we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

      (2)    In 2018, White pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree rape.

Following a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced White to an

aggregate of fifty years of imprisonment, suspended after four years for three years

of Level III probation. White did not appeal his convictions or sentence.
       (3)    In November 2021, White’s probation officer filed a VOP report,

alleging that White had failed to comply with the special conditions of his

supervision because he (i) had been discharged from two separate sex-offender

treatment programs for non-compliance, (ii) was in possession of pornography, and

(iii) was accessing the internet without permission. Following a contested VOP

hearing on March 15, 2022, the Superior Court found that White had violated the

terms of his probation and re-sentenced him to 46 years of incarceration, suspended

after the successful completion of the Transitions Sex Offender Program for three

years and six months of decreasing levels of supervision. This appeal followed.

       (4)    Probation is an “act of grace,” and the Superior Court has broad

discretion when deciding whether to revoke a defendant’s probation.1 Specifically,

the Superior Court need only be satisfied that “the probationer’s conduct has not

been as good as required under the conditions of probation.”2 Once the Superior

Court determines that a defendant has violated the terms of his probation, the

Superior Court may impose any period of incarceration up to and including the

balance of Level V time remaining on the original sentence.3

       (5)    In his opening brief on appeal, White does not dispute that he violated

the terms of his probation or challenge the legality of his VOP sentence. Instead,

1
  Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006).
2
  Id.
3
  11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005).
                                               2
White argues that the Superior Court judge erred by failing to recuse himself despite

having a personal relationship with White and making certain statements during the

VOP hearing that reflected his bias against White. White also argues that the

Superior Court improperly denied his motion for transcripts at State expense. In

response to White’s opening brief, the State filed a motion to affirm under Supreme

Court Rule 25(a). The Court denied the State’s motion and ordered the State to

provide the Court with a copy of the March 15, 2022 VOP hearing. The State

complied and included the transcript of the VOP hearing in the appendix to its

answering brief.

         (6)     Having carefully reviewed the March 15, 2022 VOP hearing transcript,

it does not support White’s claim that the Superior Court judge knew White or his

family personally or that the judge exhibited any bias against White. It is also clear

from the record that White did not ask the Superior Court judge to recuse himself in

the first place, belying White’s claim that the Superior Court judge was “on notice”

that he had a conflict of interest.4 Simply put, White’s claims regarding judicial bias

are not supported by the record.

         (7)     In his reply brief, White argues for the first time, among other things,

that he did not violate the terms of his probation and that the State’s witnesses at the

4
    Opening Br. at 9.
                                             3
VOP hearing fabricated their testimony.5              This Court’s rules provide that an

appellant waives any argument not raised in the body of his opening brief. 6 In any

event, having reviewed the transcript of the contested VOP hearing as well as the

State’s exhibits that were admitted into evidence, we conclude that the evidence was

sufficient to affirm the Superior Court’s finding that White had violated the terms of

his probation.

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the

Superior Court be AFFIRMED.

                                      BY THE COURT:

                                      /s/ Gary F. Traynor
                                      Justice

5
  White also contends that the special condition of his probation that he could not have
unauthorized access to the internet (the “internet ban”) violates the United States Supreme Court’s
holding in Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017). This claim is without merit. Here,
the internet ban applied to White only during the term of his probation; in Packingham, the
Supreme Court held that a blanket prohibition on all registered sex offenders (including those who
were no longer under the supervision of the Department of Correction) from accessing the internet
violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.
6
  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 14(b)(vi)(A)(3) (“The merits of any argument that is not raised in the body of
the opening brief shall be deemed waived and will not be considered by the Court on appeal.”);
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 14(c)(i) (“Appellant shall not reserve material for reply brief which should have
been included in a full and fair opening brief.”).
                                                4