Submitted: March 27, 2019
Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware C.A. No.
STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
Strine, Jr. Chief Justice.
11th day of April 2019, it appears to the Court that:
After being found guilty at a bench trial of Home Invasion,
Assault in the Second Degree, Robbery in the First Degree,
and Conspiracy in the Second Degree and sentenced to 14 years
in prison, followed by eight years of Level III probation,
Stephen Wheeler raises two issues on appeal. The
first-whether Wheeler's phone was unlawfully seized in
violation of the Fourth Amendment- was not raised below, and
this Court therefore reviews for plain error. This argument is
without merit as it was based on a misunderstanding of what
happened. Wheeler argued that the State, under United
States v. Carpenter,  had to obtain a warrant before it could
employ a cell site simulator to track his
cellphone. The parties both briefed this case as if a
warrant had not been issued. At oral argument, however, the
State said that a warrant had been issued in this case,
despite the fact that it was not in the record below or
before us. At the close of argument, this Court
instructed the parties to work jointly and determine whether
a warrant had in fact been issued. Two days after argument, the
State produced the warrant issued by the Superior Court
authorizing the State to employ a cell site simulator to
locate Wheeler's cellphone. Wheeler's appeal is thus
without merit because his Fourth Amendment rights have not
been violated. And to the extent that Wheeler argues that
there was an insufficient basis for the Superior Court to
find probable cause to support issuing the warrant,
that argument is also without merit. The three-page affidavit
used to request the warrant clearly shows that the cell phone
being tracked was used to plan and carry out the crime,
satisfying the probable cause requirement.
also find no merit in Wheeler's second issue on appeal,
arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his
robbery conviction. On appeal, this Court reviews a
sufficiency of the evidence challenge in the light most
favorable to the State. Wheeler's argument is based on
the State's failure to premise its robbery indictment on
Wheeler's taking of expensive electronic equipment from
the victim. Abundant evidence to that effect was introduced
at trial, but Wheeler's indictment for robbery mentioned
only currency being taken, not electronics. The problem
for Wheeler, however, is that the victim testified that
Wheeler took his wallet, which contained $10. Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the
victim's testimony is sufficient for a rational trier of
fact to find Wheeler guilty of robbery.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
 App. to Answering Br. at B273-74
(Modified Sentencing Order (June 15, 2018)).
 See Campbell v. State, 2018
WL 1709669, at *2, 184 A.3d 841 (Del. 2018) (TABLE)
("Campbell concedes that he did not raise his current
argument below. We therefore review the Superior Court's
denial of his motion to suppress evidence for plain
138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018).