Background
Darrell D. Banks received probationary sentences after pleading guilty in 2022 to disregarding a police signal, second-degree assault, second-degree conspiracy, and unauthorized use of a vehicle. In 2023, he pleaded guilty in another case to possession with intent to deliver and possession of firearm ammunition by a person prohibited. The Superior Court subsequently found multiple violations of probation and imposed revised sentences.
In February 2026, an administrative warrant alleged that Banks had missed an office visit, admitted using oxycodone and tested positive for it, and repeatedly violated curfew. At the March 19, 2026 hearing, defense counsel explained that Banks disputed some allegations but acknowledged missing at least one curfew and understood that this alone constituted a violation. The Superior Court found a violation and imposed six years at Level V for second-degree assault, suspended after one year and successful completion of a Level V program selected by the Department of Correction, followed by decreasing levels of supervision. It also imposed suspended sentences on the remaining convictions.
Banks appealed, arguing that the Superior Court failed to obtain a knowing waiver of his right to a contested violation-of-probation hearing, improperly conditioned his release from incarceration on completing a treatment program, and failed to credit time he had spent at Level V and the Level IV VOP Center before the hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court granted the State’s motion to affirm. It held that Banks waived a contested hearing after counsel described his options and Banks acknowledged that he had missed curfew. That admission supplied sufficient evidence to revoke his probation.
The court also rejected Banks’s challenge to the treatment-program condition. It explained that Tapia v. United States, which prohibits federal courts from lengthening imprisonment to promote rehabilitation, rests on the federal Sentencing Reform Act. Banks was sentenced under Delaware law and identified no Delaware authority prohibiting the sentence imposed. Once he violated probation, the Superior Court could impose incarceration up to the remaining balance of his Level V sentence.
Finally, the court held that Banks received the required credit for his prehearing confinement. The sentencing order reduced the Level V portion of his second-degree-assault sentence from six years and nine months to six years and stated that all previously served time had been considered. That reduction more than accounted for the approximately six weeks Banks spent at Level V and the Level IV VOP Center between February 5 and March 19, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A probationer’s acknowledgment of conduct that independently establishes a violation can waive a contested VOP hearing and support revocation.
- The federal rehabilitation-based sentencing restriction recognized in Tapia does not govern a sentence imposed under the Delaware Criminal Code.
- A sentencing court may account for time-served credit by reducing the remaining Level V term, provided the resulting sentence fully credits the qualifying confinement.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the limited scope of Delaware appellate review of a sentence within statutory limits. Absent unreliable or impermissible factual predicates, vindictiveness, bias, or a closed mind, the Supreme Court generally will not disturb such a sentence.
It also confirms that Delaware courts may condition suspension of Level V incarceration on successful completion of a correctional program and may reflect custody credit through an overall reduction in the Level V sentence rather than a separate day-for-day statement in the sentencing order.