Title: Powel v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 336, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 20, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BLAZEJ K. POWEL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 336, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 2103007545, 
§   2105015489, 210710519 (K)                  
§                     
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   December 18, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 20, 2024 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.  
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the opening brief, motion to affirm, and record on 
appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Blazej K. Powel, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court order sentencing him for his second violation of probation (“VOP”). The 
State of Delaware moved to affirm the judgment below on the basis that it is 
manifest on the face of Powel’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In February 2022, Powel resolved three criminal cases by pleading 
guilty to strangulation in Cr. ID No. 2103007545, noncompliance with bond in Cr. 
ID No. 2105015489, and noncompliance with bond in Cr. ID No. 2107010519.  
2 
 
The charges arose from Powel assaulting his ex-girlfriend and contacting her in 
violation of no-contact orders.  In the plea agreement, the parties agreed that Powel 
would be subject to monitoring and a substance abuse evaluation by the Treatment 
Access Center (“TASC”).  The Superior Court immediately sentenced Powel as 
follows: (i) for noncompliance with bond in Cr. ID No. 2107010519, effective 
September 13, 2021, five years of Level V incarceration, suspended for eighteen 
months of probation with GPS monitoring; (ii) for noncompliance with bond in Cr. 
ID No. 2105015489, five years of Level V incarceration, suspended for eighteen 
months of probation with GPS monitoring; and (iii) for strangulation, five years of 
Level V incarceration, suspended after 194 days for eighteen months of probation 
with GPS monitoring.  The Superior Court also ordered TASC to evaluate and 
monitor Powel.  Powel did not appeal the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(3) 
In June 2022, the Department of Correction (“DOC”) requested a 
change of venue from New Castle County to Kent County because Powel was 
residing at a treatment house in Dover and had found work in the area.  The 
Superior Court transferred Powel’s case to Kent County.   
(4) 
In July 2022, DOC filed an administrative warrant for Powel.  In 
August 2022, DOC filed a violation of probation report alleging that Powel had 
incurred new criminal charges—including driving under the influence and third-
degree assault—and violated the no-contact order with his ex-girlfriend.  A hearing 
3 
 
on the alleged violation was scheduled for August 9, 2022, but was continued 
twice at Powel’s request.    
(5) 
After a hearing on April 14, 2023, the Superior Court found Powel in 
violation of his probation.  The Superior Court sentenced Powel as follows: (i) for 
noncompliance with bond in Cr. ID No. 2107010519, effective July 23, 2022, five 
years of Level V incarceration, suspended immediately for one year of probation 
with GPS monitoring; (ii) for noncompliance with bond in Cr. ID No. 2105015489, 
five years of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of probation with GPS 
monitoring; and (iii) for strangulation, four years, five months, and sixteen days of 
Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of probation with GPS monitoring.  
Powel remained subject to TASC monitoring under the VOP sentencing order. 
(6) 
In July 2023, DOC filed another administrative warrant for Powel.  
DOC also filed a report alleging that Powel had violated his probation by testing 
positive for cocaine and alcohol multiple times, missing his curfew several times, 
and discontinuing contact with TASC.  The report also alleged that Powel was 
clocked driving 150 miles per hour on the highway.   
(7) 
 At a hearing on August 14, 2023, Powel admitted to violating his 
probation, but disputed driving over 150 miles an hour, complained about having 
to drive from his current residence in Middletown to Dover where he was no 
longer employed, and criticized TASC personnel.  DOC recommended that Powel 
4 
 
be sentenced to a Level V or Level IV program and eighteen months of probation 
with GPS monitoring.  TASC also supported a Level V or Level IV program and 
noted that sober housing might be appropriate.  Powel asked not to be sentenced to 
a treatment program, stating that he had already engaged in treatment and served 
Level V time for the convictions.   
(8) 
The Superior Court sentenced 
Powel as follows: (i) for 
noncompliance with bond in Cr. ID No. 2105015489, effective July 27, 2023, five 
years of Level V incarceration, suspended after one year of Level V incarceration 
and completion of a program within DOC’s discretion for one year of probation 
with GPS monitoring; (ii) for strangulation, four years, five months, and sixteen 
days of Level V incarceration, suspended after six months of Level V incarceration 
for one year of probation with GPS monitoring; and (iii) for noncompliance with 
bond in Cr. ID No. 2107010519, four years, two months, and five days of Level V 
incarceration, suspended after six months of Level V incarceration for one year of 
probation with GPS monitoring.  The Superior Court also ordered Powel to reside 
in a sober living facility during his probation.  This appeal followed. 
(9) 
Powel’s arguments in his opening brief may be summarized as 
follows: (i) he stopped reporting to TASC because they were unhelpful and it was 
inconvenient for him to drive to Dover; (ii) the Superior Court erred in sentencing 
him more harshly than offenders who have committed more serious VOPs, not 
5 
 
imposing the sentence recommended by DOC and TASC, and not following the 
Sentencing Accountability Commission (“SENTAC”) guidelines; (iii) he will not 
be able to complete the requirements of his sentence because he suffers from 
multiple mental health issues; (iv) his original convictions were unrelated to 
substance abuse; and (v) the judge was biased against him based on her gender and 
the domestic nature of his crimes.  For the reasons set forth below, these arguments 
are without merit.   
(10) We construe Powel’s contention concerning TASC as a challenge to 
the Superior Court’s finding that Powel violated his probation.  In a VOP hearing, 
unlike a criminal trial, the State is required to prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the defendant violated the terms of probation.1  A preponderance of 
the evidence means “some competent evidence to prove the violation asserted.”2   
At the August 2023 hearing, Powel admitted that he had violated his probation.  He 
complained of difficulties in communicating with TASC, but also admitted to 
drinking and doing drugs while on probation.  Powel’s admissions at the hearing 
constituted sufficient competent evidence for the Superior Court to find him in 
violation and revoke his probation.3   
 
1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
2 Brown v. State, 249 A.2d 269, 272 (Del. 1968). 
3 Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 161 (Del. 2006). 
6 
 
(11) Most of Powel’s remaining contentions relate to his sentence.  This 
Court’s appellate review of a sentence is extremely limited and generally ends 
upon a determination that the sentence is within statutory limits.4  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.”5  Once Powel 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 his sentence.6  The Level V time 
imposed for Powel’s violation—one year for noncompliance with bond in Cr. ID 
No. 2105015489, six months for strangulation, and six months for noncompliance 
with bond in Cr. ID No. 2107010519—did not exceed the Level V time remaining 
on those sentences.   
(12) Powel next argues that he received a harsher sentence than defendants 
who have committed more serious violations of probation but offers nothing to 
support this claim.  As to the Court’s imposition of more Level V time than 
recommended by DOC and TASC, the Superior Court was not bound by those 
sentencing recommendations.7  Similarly, the SENTAC guidelines are non-binding 
 
4 Kurzmann, 903 A.2d 702 at 714. 
5 Id.  
6 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 
7 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). 
7 
 
and do not provide a basis for appeal where, as here, the sentence falls within 
prescribed statutory limits.8   
(13) Powel contends that mental health problems will prevent him from 
completing the requirements of his sentence, but he fails to explain why this is so 
or why this means he should not have to complete the substance abuse treatment 
contemplated by his original plea agreement.  The inclusion of TASC monitoring 
in the original plea agreement contradicts Powel’s assertion that his original 
convictions were unrelated to substance abuse.  According to the arrest warrant in 
Cr. ID No. 210505489, Powel was visibly intoxicated when he was found with his 
ex-girlfriend in violation of a no-contact order.9   
(14) Finally, Powel argues that the judge was biased against him because 
of her gender and the domestic nature of his crimes.  The transcript of the VOP 
hearing does not support this claim.  The transcript shows that the Superior Court 
judge listened to everything Powel’s counsel and Powel had to say.  When Powel 
finished speaking, the Superior Court judge noted that she had sentenced him to 
time-served for his previous violation and that he had displayed a pattern of wilful 
non-compliance with sentencing conditions.  Within three months of his release 
from incarceration for his last violation, Powel tested positive for cocaine and 
alcohol and missed his curfew.  Under these circumstances, the Superior Court 
 
8 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 845 (Del. 1992). 
9 State v. Powel, Cr. ID No. 210505489, D.I. 1. 
8 
 
judge could reasonably conclude that Powel’s violation of probation merited the 
Level V sentence imposed.  There is no indication that the Superior Court judge 
was biased against Powel.            
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/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice