 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Loper v. State6/18/2003
o alleged probation violations were set forth in detail in the written report. At the VOP hearing, the probation officer stated the same allegations. Moreover, Loper admitted that he had missed three appointments, failed to pay on his fines, and failed to participate in the DUI program.
(8) Finally, there is no basis in the record for Loper's claim that the VOP hearing did not comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 32.1. As required by Rule 32.1, there was written notice of the allegations in the violation report and disclosure of the evidence against Loper. Moreover, Loper had an opportunity to appear through legal counsel, to confront the witnesses against him, and to present evidence on his own behalf.
(9) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Loper's appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We are also satisfied that Loper's counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and properly determined that Loper could not raise a meritorious issue in this appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.
Carolyn Berger Justice
Page 1 2 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|