IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

YOLANDA BOUYER-BELLO,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 44, 2021

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. K1908004533

§ 

§ 

§

§

Submitted: April 21, 2021

Decided: April 26, 2021

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

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) The appellant, Yolanda Bouyer-Bello, filed this appeal from her 

sentencing 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 Bouyer-Bello’s 

opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) On January 2, 2020, Bouyer-Bello pleaded guilty to misdemeanor theft

and second-degree criminal trespass. The Superior Court sentenced her as follows: 

for criminal trespass, to six months of imprisonment, suspended for one year of 

Level II probation; and for theft, to one year of imprisonment, suspended for one 
2

year of Level II probation. On January 30, 2020, the Superior Court modified the 

sentence order to include substance abuse evaluation and monitoring by the 

Treatment Access Center (“TASC”). Bouyer-Bello did not appeal from either of the 

January 2020 sentencing orders.

(3) On August 14, 2020, the Superior Court found Bouyer-Bello in 

violation of probation (“VOP”). The court sentenced her as follows: for criminal 

trespass, to six months of imprisonment, suspended for one year of Level III 

probation; and for theft, to one year of imprisonment, with credit for three days 

served, suspended for one year at Level IV DOC Discretion, followed by one year 

of a Level III intensive outpatient treatment program. She did not appeal from the 

August 14, 2020 sentencing order.

(4) On January 7, 2021, a probation officer filed a VOP report alleging that 

Bouyer-Bello had violated the terms of her supervision by, among other things, 

cutting off her GPS ankle monitor. At a video VOP hearing on January 22, 2021, 

Bouyer-Bello’s counsel stated that Bouyer-Bello admitted that she cut off her GPS 

ankle monitor.

1

 Moreover, when Bouyer-Bello addressed the court, she herself 

admitted that she had cut off the ankle monitor.

2

1 Motion to Affirm, Exhibit F, at 2:16-17.

2

Id. at 12:17.
3

(5) The Superior Court found Bouyer-Bello in violation and sentenced her 

as follows: for criminal trespass, to six months of imprisonment, suspended for one 

year of Level III probation; for theft, to eleven months and twenty-seven days of 

imprisonment, suspended after eight months for one year of Level III probation. 

Bouyer-Bello has appealed. 

(6) On appeal, Bouyer-Bello does not challenge the Superior Court’s 

finding that she violated probation. Instead, she challenges only the sentence 

imposed. “It is well-established that appellate review of sentences is extremely 

limited.”3 Our review of a sentence generally ends upon a determination that the 

sentence is within the statutory limits prescribed by the legislature.4 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.”5 When 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.6 

(7) In this case, the Superior Court imposed a VOP sentence that was 

within the time remaining on Bouyer-Bello’s original sentence. Thus, we find no 

3 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006).

4 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992).

5 Kurzmann, 903 A.2d at 714.

6

11 Del. C. § 4334(c).
4

reversible error with respect to the VOP sentence for the theft offense. But the State 

has acknowledged an error in the sentence that the Superior Court originally imposed 

for second-degree criminal trespass, and that error has carried through to the VOP 

sentence that is at issue in this appeal. 

(8) Second-degree criminal trespass is an unclassified misdemeanor.

7

 Title 

11, Section 4206(c) of the Delaware Code provides that the “sentence for an 

unclassified misdemeanor shall be a definite sentence fixed by the court in 

accordance with the sentence specified in the law defining the offense.”8 If the 

statute defining the offense does not specify a sentence, then “the sentence may 

include up to 30 days incarceration at Level V and such fine up to $575, restitution 

or other conditions as the court deems appropriate.”9 The statute defining the offense 

of second-degree criminal trespass does not specify a sentence.10 Under Section 

4206(c), the maximum allowable term of incarceration for that offense was therefore 

thirty days, and the six-month sentence that the Superior Court imposed exceeded 

the statutory limit.

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

Court, insofar as it pertains to the finding of the violation of probation, is 

7

11 Del. C. § 822.

8

Id. § 4206(c).

9

Id.

10 Id. § 822.
5

AFFIRMED. The matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for the purpose of 

correcting the defendant’s sentence. The motion to expedite is moot. Jurisdiction is 

not retained.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice