Title: Satchell v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 315, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 19, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRUCE SATCHELL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 315, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. S1910011557 
§                      S1910010770 
§                     
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   November 15, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 19, 2023 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, 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) 
Bruce Satchell filed this appeal from a Superior Court order sentencing 
him 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 Satchell’s opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In 2021, Satchell pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree 
burglary, two counts of theft, theft involving a senior victim, and first-degree 
criminal trespass.  The Superior Court sentenced Satchell to a total of fourteen years 
2 
 
of imprisonment, suspended after two years, followed by decreasing levels of 
supervision. 
(3) 
In 2022, the Superior Court found Satchell in violation of probation and 
sentenced him to a total of twelve years of imprisonment, suspended after sixty days 
for one year of Level III probation with GPS monitoring. 
(4) 
On July 26, 2023, Satchell was arrested and charged with several new 
offenses, including theft and unlawful use of a credit card.  On August 2, 2023, the 
Department of Correction filed a VOP report based on the new charges and other 
issues.  The following day, at the preliminary hearing in the new criminal case, 
Satchell pleaded guilty to two counts of misdemeanor theft and two counts of 
unlawful use of a credit card.  The court sentenced him to a total of four years of 
imprisonment, suspended for one year of Level III probation. 
(5) 
At a VOP hearing on August 11, 2023, Satchell admitted that he was in 
violation of probation based on the new criminal charges to which he had pleaded 
guilty.  The Superior Court sentenced him to a total of eleven years and six months 
of imprisonment, suspended after one year, followed by decreasing levels of 
supervision.   
(6) 
On appeal to this Court, Satchell challenges the factual basis for the 
new criminal offenses, asserting that he did not know that the credit card that he used 
was stolen.  He does not argue that he could not be found in violation of probation 
3 
 
based on incurring new criminal convictions, however.  Instead, he asks the Court 
to modify his sentence to require his immediate release, with six months of Level III 
probation to follow. 
(7) 
The Superior Court has the authority to revoke probation and to impose 
a VOP sentence on the basis that a probationer has been charged with or convicted 
of new criminal conduct.1  As to the VOP sentence that the Superior Court imposed, 
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  Once Satchell was 
adjudicated to be in violation of probation, the Superior Court was authorized to 
impose any period of incarceration up to and including the balance of Level V time 
remaining on his sentence.3  The record does not reflect, and Satchell does not argue, 
that the sentence imposed exceeded statutory limits or the Level V time that was 
previously suspended. 
 
1 See Rembert v. State, 2018 WL 2017924, at *1 (Del. Apr. 27, 2018) (“To the extent that Rembert 
might be arguing that there was no factual basis for charging him with violating probation, that 
argument is belied by the record.  Rembert pled guilty to committing a new criminal charge of 
drug possession in November 2017.  It was that new criminal charge that formed the basis for the 
Superior Court’s later VOP findings and sentence.”); Wood v. State, 2012 WL 3656404, at *1 (Del. 
Aug. 24, 2012) (“There is no merit to Wood’s claim that he could not be found guilty of a VOP on 
the basis of new and unproven criminal charges.  Delaware law provides that the Superior Court 
has the authority to revoke probation on the basis that a probationer has been charged with new 
criminal conduct.”). 
2 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 714 (Del. 2006). 
3 11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 
4 
 
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/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice