Title: Soto v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JALEN SOTO, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 263, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1512000932B (K) 
§                      1604007771 (K) 
§                                                               
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 13, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 14, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Jalen Soto filed this appeal from a Superior Court order sentencing him 
for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  The State has filed a motion to affirm the 
judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Soto’s opening brief 
that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
On February 15, 2017, Soto resolved two cases by pleading guilty to 
one count of possession of ammunition by a person prohibited (PABPP) and one 
count of second-degree conspiracy.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced Soto 
in accordance with the plea agreement as follows: (i) for PABPP, to fifteen years of 
2 
 
Level V incarceration, suspended after two years for one year of Level III probation; 
and (ii) for second-degree conspiracy, to two years of Level V incarceration, 
suspended for one year of Level III probation.  Soto did not appeal his convictions 
or sentence. 
(3) 
On May 29, 2018, the Superior Court found Soto in violation of the 
terms of his probation and resentenced Soto for PABPP to thirteen years of 
incarceration, suspended for six months of Level IV (work release) supervision 
followed by one year of Level III probation. For second-degree conspiracy, the 
Superior Court reimposed its sentence of two years of incarceration, suspended for 
one year of Level III probation.  On November 18, 2019, the Superior Court again 
found Soto in violation of the terms of his probation and resentenced him as follows: 
(i) for PABPP, to twelve years and eleven months of incarceration, suspended after 
thirty days followed by decreasing levels of supervision; and (ii) for second-degree 
conspiracy, to two years of incarceration, suspended for eighteen months of Level 
III probation. 
(4) 
On July 21, 2021, the Superior Court found Soto in violation of the 
terms of his probation for a third time and resentenced him as follows: (i) for PABPP, 
to twelve years and ten months of incarceration, suspended after Soto’s successful 
completion of a Level V program (to be chosen by the Department of Correction) 
followed by decreasing levels of supervision; and (ii) for second-degree conspiracy, 
3 
 
to two years of incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III probation. Soto 
did not appeal, but he did file two motions for sentence modification or review.  The 
Superior Court denied both motions, finding that Soto’s sentence remained 
appropriate for the reasons stated at the violation of probation (VOP) hearing. 
(5) 
In June 2022, Soto’s probation officer filed a VOP report, alleging that 
Soto had violated the terms of his probation by violating a no-contact order put in 
place by the Family Court that prohibited Soto from contacting his two children and 
the children’s mother.  At the July 1, 2022 VOP hearing, Soto, through counsel, 
admitted the violation.  The Superior Court then re-sentenced Soto as follows: (i) for 
PABPP, to twelve years and four months of incarceration, suspended after one 
year—to be served without benefit of good-time credit or early release under 11 Del. 
C. § 4204(k)—followed by decreasing levels of supervision; and (ii) for second-
degree conspiracy, to two years of incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III 
probation.  This appeal followed. 
(6) 
On his opening brief on appeal, Soto argues that the Superior Court 
failed to credit him with the time he served on his sentence between July 29, 2021, 
and July 1, 2022.  Soto’s claim is unavailing. 
(7) 
Probation is an “act of grace,” and the Superior Court has broad 
discretion when deciding whether to revoke a defendant’s probation.1  Once a 
 
1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
4 
 
defendant has admitted that he has violated the terms of his probation—as Soto did 
here—the Superior Court may impose any period of incarceration up to and 
including the balance of Level V time remaining on the original sentence.2  The 
Superior Court credited Soto with six months of Level V time in its July 1, 2022 
sentence.  Soto does not claim, and the record does not reflect, that Soto remained 
incarcerated at Level V supervision until July 1, 2022.  To the contrary, the record 
reflects that Soto was released to Level IV supervision (work-release) in December 
2021.3  Soto is not entitled to credit for time served at the work-release center.4 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to affirm 
be GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice  
 
 
2 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 
3 State’s Mot. to Affirm, Exhibit N. 
4 Johnson v. State, 1997 WL 70827, at *1 (Del. Feb. 12, 1997) (rejecting the defendant’s argument 
that he should have been credited with the time he served at Level IV work release).