Giles v. State
6, 2017
| Del. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Giles pled guilty in 2007 to second-degree robbery and received a sentence with partially suspended Level V time and probation; this appeal challenges his 2016 adjudication and sentence on a sixth violation of probation (VOP).
- On August 25, 2016, while assigned to a kitchen work crew at the Sussex Community Corrections Center (SCCC), Officer Megee observed Giles reach through a tray-return window and grab inmate Jennifer Moore’s wrist; Giles denied touching Moore and was moved to the VOP Center sanction pod.
- Giles was terminated from the kitchen crew and the SCCC Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) recommended return to higher security and a VOP; senior staff filed an administrative warrant and violation report alleging violation of Condition #3 (failure to abide by SCCC rules in the orientation manual Giles signed).
- At the October 14, 2016 contested VOP hearing the State presented Officer Megee and Officer Welch’s testimony, a video of the incident, Giles’ signed receipt for the orientation manual, and Giles’ admissions (he lied to Megee and had prohibited contact with Moore); Giles testified that contact was for passing kited letters.
- The Superior Court found Giles guilty of VOP, deferred sentencing to obtain a presentence report, then sentenced him to one year and eight days Level V (suspended after six months for Level IV), and Giles appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Giles’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice of charges / applicable rules | Giles: lacked adequate notice because State used Work Release Center rules that didn’t apply to him | State: administrative warrant and violation report charged violations under VOP Center rules in the orientation manual Giles signed | Court: Notice adequate; warrant/report cited VOP Center rules Giles acknowledged receiving |
| Denial of due process at sentencing (no presentence report) | Giles: sentencing deprived of required accounting of time-served because presentence report was not prepared | State: court obtained and announced time-served calculation at sentencing; no objection was made | Court: No plain error; Giles not prejudiced—the court reported credit (284 days) and Giles did not object |
| Sufficiency / admissibility of evidence at VOP hearing | Giles: evidence relied improperly on Work Release rules and was insufficient | State: introduced testimony, video, signed orientation receipt, and Giles’ admissions supporting VOP | Court: Sufficient evidence by preponderance; even if Work Release rules were erroneous, other competent evidence supported revocation |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Giles: counsel was ineffective at VOP hearing/sentencing | State: procedural posture—ineffective assistance claims not reviewed first in this Court | Court: Claim not reviewable on direct appeal (must be raised in lower court first) |
Key Cases Cited
- Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821 (Del. 1994) (ineffective-assistance claims not reviewed initially on direct appeal)
- Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702 (Del. 2006) (standard for proving a probation violation by preponderance and review principles)
- Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096 (Del. 1986) (plain error standard requiring prejudice to substantial rights)
- Weaver v. State, 779 A.2d 254 (Del. 2001) (burden of proof and procedures in probation revocation context)
- Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159 (Del. 2006) (definition of preponderance/some competent evidence for VOP revocation)