Satchell v. State ( 2023 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BRUCE SATCHELL, §
§ No. 315, 2023
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ Cr. ID Nos. S1910011557
STATE OF DELAWARE, § S1910010770
§
Appellee. §
Submitted: November 15, 2023
Decided: December 19, 2023
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) Bruce Satchell filed this appeal from a Superior Court order sentencing
him for a violation of probation (“VOP”). The State has moved to affirm the
judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Satchell’s opening
brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) In 2021, Satchell pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree
burglary, two counts of theft, theft involving a senior victim, and first-degree
criminal trespass. The Superior Court sentenced Satchell to a total of fourteen years
of imprisonment, suspended after two years, followed by decreasing levels of
supervision.
(3) In 2022, the Superior Court found Satchell in violation of probation and
sentenced him to a total of twelve years of imprisonment, suspended after sixty days
for one year of Level III probation with GPS monitoring.
(4) On July 26, 2023, Satchell was arrested and charged with several new
offenses, including theft and unlawful use of a credit card. On August 2, 2023, the
Department of Correction filed a VOP report based on the new charges and other
issues. The following day, at the preliminary hearing in the new criminal case,
Satchell pleaded guilty to two counts of misdemeanor theft and two counts of
unlawful use of a credit card. The court sentenced him to a total of four years of
imprisonment, suspended for one year of Level III probation.
(5) At a VOP hearing on August 11, 2023, Satchell admitted that he was in
violation of probation based on the new criminal charges to which he had pleaded
guilty. The Superior Court sentenced him to a total of eleven years and six months
of imprisonment, suspended after one year, followed by decreasing levels of
supervision.
(6) On appeal to this Court, Satchell challenges the factual basis for the
new criminal offenses, asserting that he did not know that the credit card that he used
was stolen. He does not argue that he could not be found in violation of probation
2
based on incurring new criminal convictions, however. Instead, he asks the Court
to modify his sentence to require his immediate release, with six months of Level III
probation to follow.
(7) The Superior Court has the authority to revoke probation and to impose
a VOP sentence on the basis that a probationer has been charged with or convicted
of new criminal conduct.1 As to the VOP sentence that the Superior Court imposed,
this Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and generally ends
upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.2 Once Satchell was
adjudicated to be in violation of probation, the Superior Court was authorized to
impose any period of incarceration up to and including the balance of Level V time
remaining on his sentence.3 The record does not reflect, and Satchell does not argue,
that the sentence imposed exceeded statutory limits or the Level V time that was
previously suspended.
1
See Rembert v. State, 2018 WL 2017924, at *1 (Del. Apr. 27, 2018) (“To the extent that Rembert
might be arguing that there was no factual basis for charging him with violating probation, that
argument is belied by the record. Rembert pled guilty to committing a new criminal charge of
drug possession in November 2017. It was that new criminal charge that formed the basis for the
Superior Court’s later VOP findings and sentence.”); Wood v. State, 2012 WL 3656404, at *1 (Del.
Aug. 24, 2012) (“There is no merit to Wood’s claim that he could not be found guilty of a VOP on
the basis of new and unproven criminal charges. Delaware law provides that the Superior Court
has the authority to revoke probation on the basis that a probationer has been charged with new
criminal conduct.”).
2
Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006).
3
11 Del. C. § 4334(c).
3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice
4