Rogers v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE § § § § § § § § § § § JAMES E. ROGERS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. No. 251, 2007 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0407026328 Submitted: February 8, 2008 Decided: March 7, 2008 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 7th day of March 2008, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, James E. Rogers, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s April 18, 2007 order denying his motion for modification of his VOP sentence. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. (2) The record reflects that, in August 2004 and September 2004, the grand jury indicted Rogers on 17 separate criminal offenses. In November 2004, Rogers pleaded guilty to Burglary in the Second Degree, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Offensive Touching, Aggravated Menacing, and Terroristic Threatening. The remaining charges on both indictments were dismissed. Rogers was sentenced to a total of 7 years and 30 days of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving 15 months. (3) The record reflects that, in March 2006, Rogers was found to have committed a VOP by not abiding by the conditions of his supervision. He was sentenced to 3 years and 30 days at Level V, which was suspended. The record further reflects that, on March 28, 2007, Rogers pleaded guilty to Criminal Impersonation. Additional charges of Assault in the Third Degree, Malicious Interference, and Menacing were dismissed as part of the plea agreement. For his second VOP as a result of this new charge, Rogers was sentenced to 3 years and 30 days at Level V, to be suspended after serving 3 years. Thereafter, Rogers filed a motion for modification of his VOP sentence, which the Superior Court denied. (4) In this appeal, Rogers claims that his VOP sentence should be reduced because a) he has not picked up any new charges; b) he did not report to his probation officer because he was visiting his girlfriend at a hospice; c) he has a good job to go to when released; and d) both his parents are ill and he must take care of them. (5) Delaware law provides that, once a defendant violates the terms of his probation, the Superior Court has the authority to require the 2 defendant to serve the original sentence imposed.1 Contrary to Rogers allegations, he did pick up a new charge of Criminal Impersonation, which served as one of the grounds for his second VOP. Moreover, while Rogers alleges that he did not report to his probation officer because he was visiting his girlfriend, one of the conditions of his probation was to have no contact with his girlfriend. In the absence of any evidence of an abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying Rogers motion for modification of his VOP sentence, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 1 State v. Sloman, 886 A.2d 1257, 1260 (Del. 2005) (citing Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4334(c)). 3
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.
