IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

JASON L. FAULKNER, 

 

Defendant BelowAppellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§ 

§ No. 537, 2017 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID Nos. 1608019653 (K) 

§ and 1607023832 (K) 

§ 

 Submitted: December 28, 2017 

 Decided: February 27, 2018 

Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 

ORDER 

 This 27th day of February 2018, upon consideration of the appellant’s 

opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to 

the Court that: 

 (1) The defendant-appellant, Jason L. Faulkner, filed this appeal from the 

Superior Court’s modified sentencing order entered on November 27, 2017. The 

State filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest 

on the face of Faulkner’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree 

and affirm. 

 (2) The record reflects that Faulkner pled guilty on October 25, 2016 to 

one count of third degree burglary and one count of escape after conviction, which 
2

were charged under two separate indictments. The Superior Court sentenced him, 

effective August 25, 2016, as follows: (i) as to third degree burglary, three years at 

Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving eighteen months (with a 

requirement that Faulkner successfully complete the Key Program while at Level 

V), to be followed by decreasing levels of supervision; and (ii) as to escape after 

conviction, eight years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving 

twelve months (with a requirement that Faulkner complete a substance abuse 

treatment program while at Level V), to be followed by six months at Level III 

probation. Faulkner did not file a direct appeal. 

(3) In November 2017, Faulkner returned to the Superior Court for a 

review of his sentence. Although the reason for the sentence review is not clear 

from the Superior Court record, Faulkner asserts in his opening brief on appeal that 

the Department of Correction requested the sentence review after Faulkner signed 

himself out of the Key Program. Faulkner was represented by counsel. At the 

conclusion of the hearing, the Superior Court issued a modified order, sentencing 

Faulkner as follows: (i) as to burglary third degree, effective August 26, 2016, 

three years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended upon successful completion 

of the Key Program, followed by decreasing levels of supervision; and (ii) as to 

escape after conviction, eight years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 
3

serving twelve months, to be followed by one year of probation. This appeal 

followed. 

(4) In his two-page opening brief on appeal, Faulkner argues that the 

Superior Court’s 2017 modified sentencing order violates his 2016 plea agreement. 

Faulkner contends that he agreed to plead guilty in 2016 in exchange for a prison 

sentence of eighteen months. Faulkner contends that he requested the Superior 

Court to add the Key Program to his sentence so that he would have the 

opportunity to earn good time and early release but that he “didn’t want the 

department of corrections to hold [him] more than eighteen months.” Faulkner 

asserts that the Key Program was only required to be completed within the 

eighteen months but that he was “due to be released at 18 months with or without 

the completion of the Key Program.” 

(5) Faulkner’s argument is unsupported by the record. Both his guilty 

plea agreement and the 2016 sentencing order reflect that Faulkner was sentenced 

to serve time in prison on both his burglary conviction and his escape conviction, 

for a total of two and a half years at Level V imprisonment. Thus, his contention 

that the plea agreement required his release at the end of eighteen months is simply 

incorrect. Moreover, both the plea agreement and the 2016 sentencing order 

reflect that successful completion of a treatment program was a requirement of his 

sentence for each conviction. Again, his contention that his plea agreement 
4

required his release after eighteen months whether or not he had successfully 

completed a treatment program is unsupported by the record. Under the 

circumstances, we find no merit to Faulkner’s appeal. The Superior Court’s 

modified sentence did not violate Faulkner’s plea agreement and was otherwise 

legal. 

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

Court is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice