Title: Diaz v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 42, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 15, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CARMELO DIAZ, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 42, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. K1708014930 
§                      K1609018643 
§                      K1902014670 
§                      K1709005673 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   May 11, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 15, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
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, Carmelo Diaz, 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 on the face of Diaz’s opening brief that his appeal 
is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
On November 15, 2017, Diaz resolved charges in three cases by 
pleading guilty to three counts of third-degree burglary.  For each count, the Superior 
Court sentenced Diaz, effective August 21, 2017, to imprisonment for three years, 
suspended for one year of Level III probation with GPS monitoring, with probation 
2 
 
to run concurrently.  Diaz was adjudicated to be in violation of probation in these 
cases in 2017, 2018, and 2019.   
(3) 
On April 3, 2019, Diaz pleaded guilty to a charge of third-offense 
driving under the influence.  As later modified, the Superior Court sentenced Diaz, 
effective February 24, 2019, to two years of imprisonment, suspended after ninety 
days for one year of a Level III intensive outpatient treatment program.  In January 
2020, February 2021, and February 2022, Diaz was adjudicated to be in violation of 
probation. 
(4) 
On November 18, 2022, a probation officer filed a VOP report alleging 
that Diaz had failed to report to probation as required on four dates in October and 
November 2022; that Diaz had urine screens in September and October 2022 that 
showed positive results for alcohol and oxycodone, which he was prohibited from 
possessing or consuming; and that he had been discharged from Aftercare for 
noncompliance.  At a VOP hearing on January 6, 2023, Diaz admitted that he was 
in violation of the terms of his probation.  As to sentencing, he stated that he 
struggled to maintain a job while trying to comply with probation supervision and 
requested that the court sentence him to time served followed by Level I probation 
so that he could pay his fines and restitution without further significant monitoring 
by probation.  The Superior Court found Diaz in violation of probation and sentenced 
him as follows:  for third-degree burglary, to three years of imprisonment, suspended 
3 
 
after successful completion of a program in DOC’s Discretion for six months of 
Level IV DOC Discretion, suspended after successful completion for six months of 
Level IV Work Release, followed by one year of Level III probation; for third-degree 
burglary, to one year and eleven months, suspended for six months of Level IV Work 
Release, followed by one year of Level III probation; for the third-offense DUI, to 
one year and two months of imprisonment, suspended for one year of Level III 
probation; and for third-degree burglary, to two years, five months, and eight days 
of imprisonment, suspended for six months of Level IV Work Release, followed by 
one year of Level III probation. 
(5) 
On appeal from his January 6, 2023 VOP sentence, Diaz contends that 
the Superior Court abused its discretion by imposing Level III probation for 
“technical violations” and that he cannot comply with Level III supervision while 
maintaining employment and meeting his financial obligations.  We find no 
reversible error.  “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 
 
1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006). 
2 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
4 
 
vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind.”3  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.4  Diaz 
does not contend that the sentence imposed exceeded the Level V time remaining on 
his sentence.  The Superior Court acted within its discretion when sentencing Diaz 
for his admitted violation of probation. 
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 
 
 
 
3 Kurzmann, 903 A.2d at 714. 
4 11 Del. C. § 4334(c).