Title: Kossman v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 95, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 31, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ADAM KOSSMAN, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 95, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2207003267 (K) 
§                     
§                     
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   May 4, 2023 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 31, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the opening brief, motion to affirm, and record on 
appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Adam Kossman, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 
order 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 Kossman’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and  
affirm. 
(2) 
In September 2022, a grand jury charged Kossman with drug 
possession and drug dealing.  On October 25, 2022, Kossman pleaded guilty to drug 
possession.  The Superior Court sentenced Kossman, effective July 7, 2022, to two 
2 
 
years of Level V incarceration, suspended immediately for one year of Level III 
probation that included evaluation and monitoring by TASC.  Kossman did not 
appeal. 
(3) 
On January 11, 2023,  the Department of Correction (“DOC”) requested 
issuance of a capias for Kossman’s VOP.  The probation officer alleged that 
Kossman had failed to report to his probation officer since December 13, 2022 and 
all efforts to reach him had been unsuccessful.  The capias was returned on February 
9, 2023.  On February 16, 2023, DOC filed a supplemental VOP report alleging that 
Kossman had been arrested on new criminal charges, including resisting arrest and 
possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of his probation.  The probation officer 
recommended that the Superior Court sentence Kossman to two years of Level V 
incarceration, suspended after 90 days of Level V incarceration, followed by six 
months of Level IV DOC discretion and one year of Level III probation. 
(4) 
After a hearing on February 24, 2023, the Superior Court found that 
Kossman had violated his probation.  The Superior Court sentenced Kossman to one 
year and eight months of Level V incarceration, suspended after six months of Level 
V incarceration to be served without the benefit of any form of early release under 
11 Del. C. § 4204(k), followed by one year of Level III probation.  This appeal 
followed.     
3 
 
(5) 
In his opening brief, Kossman does not dispute that he violated his 
probation, but contends that the Superior Court should not have sentenced him to a 
longer sentence than what the probation officer recommended for his “technical” 
VOP.1 
(6) 
This Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and 
generally ends upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.2  
When 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   
(7) 
Once Kossman committed a VOP, the Superior Court could impose any 
period of incarceration up to and including the balance of the Level V time remaining 
on Kossman’s sentence.4  Kossman’s VOP sentence—one year and eight months of 
Level V incarceration, suspended after six months of Level V incarceration to be 
served under 11 Del. C. § 4204(k) for one year of Level III probation—does not 
exceed the Level V time remaining on his original sentence.  Kossman conclusorily 
alleges that the Superior Court judge must have been biased to sentence him to a 
longer sentence than what the probation officer recommended, but the Superior 
 
1 Opening Brief at 1.   
2 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006). 
3 Id.  
4 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 
4 
 
Court was not bound by the probation officer’s recommendation.5  The Superior 
Court could reasonably conclude that Kossman’s probation violations, which 
included failure to report to his probation officer and his arrest for new charges, were 
not “technical” as Kossman contends and merited a longer Level V sentence than 
the probation officer’s recommended sentence.          
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/Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
5 See, e.g., Imle v. State, 2020 WL 3397465, at *1 (Del. June 18, 2020) (recognizing that the 
Superior Court is not bound by the probation officer’s sentencing recommendation).