IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JEFFREY P. IMLE ,
Defendant Below
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE
,
Plaintiff Below
, Appellee. § § No. 45, 2020 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No s

. S1907016328 § S1907017841 § § §

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: June 18 , 2020

Before VA LIHURA
, VAUGHN
, and TRAYNOR
, Justices.

O R D E R

U pon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to

affirm
, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Jeffrey P. Imle , filed this appeal from his sentencing for
a violation of probation (“VOP”) . The State has moved to affirm the judgment below

on the ground that it is manifest o n the face of Imle ’s opening brief that his appeal
is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) In August 2019
, Imle pleaded guilty to several theft charges, second

degree conspiracy, and drug possession. The Superior Court sentenced Imle to
imprisonment for a total of eight years and six months, with credit for twenty

- three
days served, suspended for one year of Level III probation.2

(3) At a hearing on January 7, 2020, the Superior Court found Imle in
violation of his probation. The court sentenced Imle to a tota l of eight years and five
months of imprisonment, suspended upon the successful completion of the Level V
Key program, for one year of Level III Aftercare probation. Imle has appealed.
(4) On appeal, Imle does not challenge the Superior Court’s finding that h e violated probation. Instead, he challenges only the sentence imposed. Supported by
an incomplete document that shows a sentencing recommendation for Level IV
Crest, he asserts that his probation officer initially recommended placement at Level

IV Crest , not Level V, and that the officer changed the recommendation based on an
incorrect belief that Imle was scheduled for a future court appearance in
Pennsylvania. He argues that the Superior Court erred by imposing a sentence that

exceeded the probation o fficer’s initial recommendation

. (5) Imle’s claim lack s merit. “It is well

- established that appellate review
of sentences is extremely limited.” 1 Our review of a sentence generally ends upon a
determination that the sentence is within the statutory limits prescribed by the
legislature. 2 If the sentence falls within the statutory limits, “we consider only
whether it is based on factual predicates which are false, impermissible, or lack
minimal reliability, judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind.” 3 When

1 Kurzmann v. State , 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006). 2 Mayes v. State , 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 3 Kurzmann , 903 A.2 d at 714.3

sentencing a defendant for a VOP, the trial court may impose any period of
incarceration up to and including the balance of the Level V time remaining to be
served on the original sentence. 4
(6) In this case, t he Superior Court imposed a VOP senten ce that was well
within the time remaining on Imle’s original sentence. Moreover, regardless of
whether the probation officer recommended a Level IV o r Level V sentence, t he
Superior Court is not bound by a probation officer’s sentencing recommendation. 5

We therefore find no reversible error.
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/ Jam es T. Vaughn, Jr. Justice

4 11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 5 Evans v. State , 2014 WL 707169 (Del. Feb. 17, 2014).