Title: Evans v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 328, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 15, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JASON E. EVANS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 328, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2008009878 (K) 
§                    
§                     
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   March 24, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 15, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Jason E. Evans, filed this appeal from his sentencing for 
a violation of probation (“VOP”).  We affirm the Superior Court’s finding that Evans 
violated the terms of his probation and the amount of unsuspended Level V time that 
the court imposed for the VOP.  Because the sentencing order at issue increased the 
balance of the Level V time remaining to be served on Evans’s sentence, however, 
we vacate the sentencing order and remand for resentencing. 
(2) 
In November 2020, Evans was indicted for first-degree assault and 
other offenses.  The charges arose from an incident in August 2020, during which 
2 
 
Evans cut a female companion on the head and face with a razor blade.  On February 
11, 2021, Evans pleaded guilty to second-degree assault.  That same day, the 
Superior Court sentenced Evans, effective August 21, 2020, to eight years of 
imprisonment, suspended for one year of Level IV Work Release, followed by 
probation.  The Superior Court later modified the sentence to change the Level IV 
portion from Work Release to DOC Discretion. 
(3) 
On June 3, 2021, the Superior Court found Evans in violation of 
probation and resentenced him, effective June 3, 2021, to seven years and five 
months of imprisonment, suspended for six months of Level IV Work Release, 
followed by decreasing levels of supervision.  Evans did not appeal.  
(4) 
On February 1, 2022, a probation officer filed a VOP report alleging 
that Evans had incurred a new charge arising from contacting and threatening the 
victim of the assault conviction shortly after his release from Level IV supervision; 
had missed eight scheduled office visits; and had failed to obtain the substance 
abuse, mental health, and domestic violence evaluations that were required by his 
sentence order.  At a VOP hearing on August 22, 2022, Evans admitted that he was 
in violation of the terms of his probation based on the missed office visits and his 
failure to engage in the substance abuse and mental health evaluations.  The Superior 
Court found Evans in violation of probation and resentenced him to seven years and 
3 
 
six months of imprisonment, suspended after one year for six months of Level IV 
Work Release, followed by one year of Level III probation with GPS monitoring. 
(5) 
Evans has appealed from his August 22, 2022 VOP sentence.  On 
appeal, Evans contends that the Superior Court imposed an excessive VOP sentence 
for “technical” violations and that the sentence exceeds the sentence established by 
the Sentencing Accountability Commission (“SENTAC”) guidelines.1   
(6) 
We find no merit to Evans’s claims.  Evans appeared at the VOP 
hearing represented by counsel.  He admitted that he had violated probation, and the 
Superior Court found him in violation based on that admission.  Evans’s admission 
to violating probation constitutes sufficient evidence to sustain the Superior Court’s 
finding of a VOP.2  As to his VOP sentence, “[i]t 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 
 
1 
SENTAC 
Benchbook 
2021-22, 
available 
at 
https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/ 
download.aspx?id. 
2 E.g., Cook v. State, 2019 WL 949372, at *1 (Del. Feb. 25, 2019); Lougheed v. State, 2016 WL 
5899238, at *2 (Del. Oct. 10, 2016). 
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. 
4 
 
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  The Superior Court acted within its discretion when 
it imposed one year of unsuspended prison time, and Evans’s claims that the 
sentence was too high for “technical” violations and exceeded the SENTAC 
guidelines do not establish grounds for reversal.7 
(7) 
Based on our review of the record, however, we conclude that the 
Superior Court erroneously increased the Level V time remaining to be served on 
Evans’s sentence.  The court’s June 3, 2021 order sentencing Evans for his prior 
VOP imposed seven years and five months of imprisonment.  Thus, even if Evans 
served no time after June 3, 2021, the Superior Court could impose, at most, seven 
years and five months of Level V time for the August 2022 VOP.8  But the August 
22, 2022 sentencing order erroneously increased that time to seven years and six 
months, and we therefore vacate that order and remand for resentencing.  Evans is 
entitled to be present and represented by counsel when he is resentenced.   
 
6 11 Del. C. § 4334(c). 
7 See Erwin v. State, 2019 WL 6833859, at *1 (Del. Dec. 13, 2019) (rejecting claim that VOP 
sentence, which imposed one year of unsuspended prison time for failure to report to probation as 
required and to engage in treatment as required, was excessive); Grimm v. State, 2018 WL 
1790186, at *1 (Del. Apr. 13, 2018) (rejecting claim that the Level V time imposed for a VOP 
exceeded the SENTAC guidelines, because “it is well-settled that the SENTAC guidelines are 
voluntary and do not provide a basis for appeal of a sentence that is within the authorized statutory 
limits”). 
8 See Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044 (Del. 2005) (vacating sentence imposed for second VOP 
because it exceeded the sentence imposed for first VOP). 
5 
 
(8) 
Following this Court’s denial of the State’s motion to affirm, the State 
submitted with its answering brief information from the Department of Correction 
(“DOC”) reflecting the time that Evans had served, through December 2, 2022, at 
Level V or the Level IV VOP Center.9  Evans’s original, 2020 sentence was eight 
years; the August 22, 2022 VOP sentencing order sentenced Evans to seven years 
and six months of incarceration, effective February 3, 2022.  The DOC information 
indicates that Evans served 285 days—approximately nine or ten months—at Level 
V or a Level IV VOP Center before February 3, 2022.  As the State acknowledges, 
a “defendant is entitled to Level V credit for time previously served on an underlying 
charge at Level V or a Level IV VOP Center.”10  It is not clear to us that the VOP 
sentence at issue in this appeal appropriately accounted for the time that Evans had 
served, but we leave this for the Superior Court to determine in the first instance.  
Thus, when resentencing Evans, the Superior Court should ensure that the sentence 
appropriately accounts for the time to which Evans is entitled. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court’s finding that 
the appellant violated the terms of his probation is AFFIRMED.  The Superior 
Court’s August 22, 2022 sentencing order is VACATED, and the matter is hereby 
 
9 Appendix to Answering Brief, at B-58-59.  Evans was still incarcerated at the time that DOC 
compiled this information. 
10 Rivera v. State, 2014 WL 2093709, at *3 (Del. May 15, 2014). 
6 
 
REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this 
order.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice