Opinion
No. 333, 2002
Submitted: July 8, 2002
Decided: September 24, 2002
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr.A. No. VS01-09-0757-01
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
REGINAL D. WHITE, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 333, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: July 8, 2002 Decided: September 24, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices
ORDER
This 24th day of September 2002, 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, Reginal D. White, claims error in the Superior Court's finding of a violation of probation ("VOP"). The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of White's opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and AFFIRM.
White appears to argue that he was wrongfully forced out of the Level IV Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program and sent to the Sussex County VOP Center, where he was unable to participate in their activities due to severe back pain.
SUPR. CT. R. 25(a).
(2) At a VOP hearing on May 24, 2002, the Superior Court determined that White had violated his probation in connection with his April 3, 2002 conviction for Delivery of Cocaine. The Superior Court revoked White's probation and reimposed his sentence of 6 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for 1 year at Level IV Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program after successful completion of the Key Program at Level V, with the balance of the sentence to be suspended for 3 years at Level III Aftercare.
(3) The rules of this Court direct all parties to order a transcript and to include in their appendix those portions of the record relevant to any claims on appeal. As the appellant, White has the burden of producing "such portions of the . . . transcript as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate account of the context in which the claim of error occurred" and "all evidence relevant to the challenged finding or conclusion."
Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987); SUPR. CT. R. 9(e) (ii) and 14(e).
(4) The record in this case reflects that White neither designated in his notice of appeal nor made any arrangements to obtain the transcript of his May 24, 2002 VOP hearing. In fact, his notice of appeal states "No transcripts needed." The lack of a transcript precludes a review of the evidence presented at the hearing and, therefore, precludes this Court from determining whether the Superior Court's finding of a VOP was erroneous, as White claims.
(5) It is manifest on the face of White's 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, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), the motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.