Gordon v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVON GORDON, §
§ No. 225, 2024
Defendant Below, § No. 312, 2024
Appellant, §
§ Court Below: Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 2108015289 (N)
§ Cr. ID No. 2107009883 (N)
Appellee. § Cr. ID No. 2201000032 (N)
§ Cr. ID No. 2202001715 (N)
§ Cr. ID No. 2201007423 (N)
§ Cr. ID No. 2308008915 (N)

Submitted: May 21, 2025
Decided: July 14, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

The Court, having considered the briefs and record on appeal, and after oral

argument, rules as follows:

(1) Over two years, Davon Gordon amassed numerous domestic violence-

related charges. He resolved all of the charges by pleading guilty to five of the

indicted counts and was placed on probation. After sentencing, he incurred new

criminal charges and was charged with three violations of probation – all involving

the same person. He resolved the new domestic violence-related criminal charges
by pleading guilty to one Act of Intimidation. The court sentenced him to eight years

in prison, all suspended for decreasing levels of supervision.

(2) By pleading guilty to an Act of Intimidation, Gordon violated his prior

probation conditions – not to commit a new criminal offense. The Superior Court

sentenced him to three years of Level V custody for violating probation followed by

decreasing levels of supervision. On appeal, Gordon argues that his plea to an Act

of Intimidation was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because he should have

been told that pleading guilty to a crime would result in a violation of his probation.

We find that his plea was properly entered and affirm his conviction.

(3) Mr. Gordon has a history of domestic violence involving the same

person. The details of his repetitive criminal behavior are not important to this

appeal. What is important is that, after incurring thirty-one charges related to

domestic violence, he resolved those charges by pleading guilty to five of the

indicted counts. The court sentenced Gordon to Level III probation and other

conditions, including no unlawful contact with the victim of his domestic violence.1

The no-unlawful-contact condition was later upgraded to a no-contact order.2

1
Appendix to Opening Br. at A92–95 [hereinafter A__] (Sentence Order, May 1, 2023
convictions).
2
See A109 (Violation Report, July 25, 2023).

2
(4) Gordon did not stop his repetitive criminal behavior. In less than a year,

he incurred three violations of probation (“VOP”) and new criminal charges – all for

domestic violence involving the same person.3 The State offered Gordon two pleas

– one resolving the violations of probation and the criminal charges, and another

resolving just the criminal charges. Gordon chose the second option.4

(5) On January 29, 2024, Gordon pleaded guilty to an Act of Intimidation.

During his plea colloquy with the court, Gordon confirmed that he reviewed the plea

paperwork, was guilty of the intimidation charge, entered his guilty plea freely and

voluntarily, understood the penalty range for the charge, and acknowledged the

constitutional rights he waived by entering the plea.5 Gordon also asked the court

when his VOP hearing would be scheduled.6 The trial judge reiterated that the plea

only resolved the new offenses as Gordon chose.7 The trial judge then accepted his

3
A99–105 (Violation Report, June 27, 2023); A106–12 (Violation Report, July 25, 2023); A127–
28 (Indictment, Sept. 25, 2023); A113–20 (Violation Report Jan. 24, 2024).
4
A139–40 (Tr. Plea Colloquy) (The State: “There was two offers [sic] today. There was one that
would have resolved his VOPs as well. . . . Mr. Gordon has asked to just resolve this case and then
handle his VOP at a VOP hearing calendar.”).
5
A152–59.
6
A161 (Gordon: “Oh, as far as the VOP hearing, will I have that soon so I can kind of get that
done, too?”).
7
A162 (The Court: “The Prosecution mentioned they offered you a plea that would have resolved
the VOPs. So we’re not here on that plea. We have a different plea here.”).

3
plea as “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given,”8 deferred sentencing, and

ordered a presentence investigation.9

(6) At the May 17, 2024 sentencing hearing, defense counsel stated that

Gordon was present to be sentenced for the Act of Intimidation and his violation of

probation.10 Gordon asked the judge to sentence him to one year total.11 The

Superior Court sentenced Gordon to eight years of Level V custody for the

intimidation conviction, suspended for six months of Level IV partial confinement,

followed by eighteen months of Level III probation under intensive supervision.12

For the violations of probation, the court sentenced Gordon to three years of Level

V custody with credit for time served, followed by four years of Level III

probation.13

8
A166.
9
Gordon’s VOP hearings for his 2023 convictions were initially scheduled for July 26, 2023. A13
(ID No. N2107009883, Docket No. 21); A24–25 (ID No. N2108015289, Docket No. 27); A35 (ID
No. N2201000032, Docket No. 30); A47 (ID No. N2202001715, Docket No. 40); A57 (ID No.
N2201007423, Docket No. 31). The hearings were continued until his new offenses were resolved
with the guilty plea.
10
A197 (Tr. Sentencing Hr.) (Defense counsel: “Mr. Gordon is here for two things: To be
sentenced on the Act of Intimidation charge, as well as Violation of Probation.”).
11
See A214, A217; see also Opening Brief at 17 (“After a lengthy speech, Mr. Gordon asked the
judge to sentence him to one year total for all the cases.”).
12
Sentence Order, State v. Gordon, ID No. N2308008915 (Del. Super. Ct. May 17, 2024).
13
Violation of Probation Sentence Order, State v. Gordon, ID Nos. N2108015289, N2107009883,
N2201000032, N2202001715, N2201007423 (Del. Super. Ct. May 17, 2024).

4
(7) Gordon argues on appeal that the Superior Court erred by failing to

inform Gordon at the plea hearing that pleading guilty to an Act of Intimidation

would foreclose a challenge to his violations of probation. According to Gordon, he

told the court at the January 29, 2024 plea hearing that he wanted to litigate his

violations of probation separately. The parties agree that we review Gordon’s claim

for plain error.14 Under this standard of review, we reverse only if the error

complained is so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights that it “jeopardize[s] the

fairness and integrity of the trial process.”15

(8) “A criminal defendant’s decision to plead guilty involves the waiver of

several important constitutional rights.”16 Thus, a valid guilty plea must be entered

into knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. A trial judge confirms that a plea is

valid by determining, among other things, that the defendant understands the

“consequences of his plea.”17

14
See Sullivan v. State, 636 A.2d 931, 937 (Del. 1994) (“[Defendant] did not file a motion to
withdraw his guilty pleas in the Superior Court. The absence of such a motion, however, does not
preclude review by this Court: ‘[F]ailure of a trial court to ascertain whether a plea of guilty has
been entered knowingly and voluntarily is a concern of constitutional implication.’ Therefore, we
will review the record of [defendant’s] guilty pleas for plain error.” (second alteration in original)
(quoting Webster v. State, 604 A.2d 1364, 1366 (Del. 1992))).
15
Burrell v. State, 332 A.3d 412, 428 (Del. 2024) (citing Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096,
1100 (Del. 1986)); see Supr. Ct. R. 8.
16
MacDonald v. State, 778 A.2d 1064, 1074 (Del. 2001).
17
Patterson v. State, 684 A.2d 1234, 1238 (Del. 1996); see Super. Ct. Crim. R. 11(c); Brown v.
State, 250 A.2d 503, 505 (Del. 1969).

5
(9) We are satisfied that Gordon understood the consequences of his plea.

First, when the court sentenced him for the five indicted counts, Gordon was aware

that a condition of probation was not to commit new criminal offenses.18 Second,

the Truth-In-Sentencing form put Gordon on notice that pleading guilty to an Act of

Intimidation could result in a violation of probation. On the form, Gordon replied

“Yes” to the question, “Were you on probation or parole at the time of this offense?

(A guilty plea may constitute a violation).”19 During the plea hearing, Gordon

acknowledged that he had reviewed and signed the Truth-In-Sentencing form.20 He

also admitted during the plea colloquy that he was “on probation at the time of this

offense.”21 Third, during the sentencing hearing, the court asked to hear from

defense counsel “on the sentencing for Mr. Gordon’s Violation of Probation and

sentencing.”22 Counsel responded in Gordon’s presence that “Mr. Gordon is here

for two things: To be sentenced on the Act of Intimidation charge, as well as the

18
See, e.g., A100 (Violation Report, June 27, 2023) (“It has been alleged that the following
conditions of supervision have been violated: 1. You must not commit a new criminal offense or
moving motor vehicle offense during the supervision period.”).
19
A131 (Truth-In-Sentencing form).
20
A152–53 (Tr. Plea Colloquy).
21
A158–59.
22
A194 (Tr. Sentencing Hr.).

6
Violation of Probation.”23 Finally, Gordon asked the court to sentence him to one

year with credit for time served.24

(10) Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Gordon “is

bound by his answers on the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form and by his sworn

testimony prior to the acceptance of the guilty plea.”25 The Superior Court did not

plainly err when it accepted Gordon’s plea to an Act of Intimidation.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the

Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice

23
A197.
24
See A214, A217.
25
Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).

7