Taylor v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BYRON D. TAYLOR, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § Nos. 267 & 312, 2012 (CONSOLIDATED) Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County Cr. ID Nos. 1012017017 1105022284 Submitted: January 24, 2013 Decided: April 10, 2013 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 10th day of April 2013, upon consideration of the opening brief filed by the appellant and the motion to affirm filed by the appellee, it appears to the Court that: (1) At a violation of probation ( VOP ) hearing held on April 17, 2012, the appellant, Byron D. Taylor, admitted that he had violated his probation. Based on that admission, the Superior Court revoked Taylor s probation and sentenced him. This appeal followed. (2) It is manifest on the face of Taylor s opening brief that this appeal is without merit. On appeal, Taylor does not challenge his VOP conviction and/or sentencing on April 17, 2012. Instead, Taylor challenges the validity of guilty pleas that he entered into on May 16, 20111 and November 23, 2011.2 Taylor s claims, arising from his prior guilty pleas on May 16, 2011 and November 23, 2011, are not justiciable in this appeal from his April 17, 2012 VOP conviction and sentencing.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appellee s motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief Justice 1 State v. Taylor, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 1012017017. State v. Taylor, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 1105022284. 3 See, e.g., Sewell v. State, 2003 WL 22839962 (Del. Supr.) (concluding that right to counsel claim arising from prior, appealable 2001 VOP adjudication was not justiciable in subsequent 2003 appeal from denial of sentence modification motion); Strawley v. State, 2002 WL 86687 (Del. Supr.) (concluding that challenge arising from prior, appealable VOP proceeding was untimely in subsequent appeal from denial of sentence correction motion (citing Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778 (Del. 1989))). 2 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
