IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

JACOB SANTIAGO, 

 

Defendant BelowAppellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§ 

§ No. 235, 2014 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware, 

§ in and for New Castle County 

§ Cr. ID 1112008352 

§ 

§

 Submitted: September 10, 2014 

 Decided: September 30, 2014 

Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices. 

O R D E R

 This 30th day of September 2014, upon consideration of the appellant’s 

opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 

 (1) The defendant-appellant, Jacob Santiago, filed this appeal from the 

Superior Court’s order, dated April 9, 2014, sentencing him for a violation of 

probation (VOP). The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment 

below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Santiago’s opening brief that 

his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm. 
2

 (2) The record reflects that Santiago pled guilty on June 6, 2012 to 

Aggravated Drug Dealing.1 The Superior Court immediately sentenced Santiago

to ten years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after six months for six 

months at Level IV Home Confinement followed by one year at Level III 

probation. In January 2014, police arrested Santiago, charging him with Carrying 

a Concealed Deadly Weapon, Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person 

Prohibited, and Resisting Arrest.2

 As a result of these new criminal charges, 

Santiago was charged with a VOP for violating the conditions of his probation that 

prohibited him from possessing a firearm and from committing new criminal 

offenses. Following a hearing, the Superior Court found Santiago had violated 

probation and sentenced him to nine years at Level V incarceration, to be 

suspended after two years for six months at Level III probation. Santiago now 

appeals. 

 (3) In his opening brief on appeal, Santiago does not dispute that he 

committed the VOP as charged. His only contention on appeal is that the officers 

who arrested him used excessive force and broke his arm, which required surgery 

and caused him permanent disability. 

 

1

 16 Del. C. § 4752(2). 

2

 A Superior Court jury ultimately found Santiago guilty of all three charges on August 13, 2014. 
3

 (4) The issue Santiago raises, however, is not cognizable in this appeal 

from his VOP sentence. This Court reviews a VOP finding for abuse of 

discretion.3 In a VOP hearing, the State is only required to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms of his 

probation.4

 A preponderance of evidence means “some competent evidence” to 

“reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as 

good as required by the conditions of probation.”5 In this case, Santiago does not 

dispute that he was in possession of a weapon in violation of the terms of his 

probation. Accordingly, we find no basis to overturn the Superior Court’s 

judgment. 

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

Court is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely

 Justice 

 

3 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 

4

Id.

5

Id. (quoting Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006)).