Title: Tracey v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 295, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 23, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRIAN T. TRACEY, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 295, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2208000983 (K) 
§                       
§   
§                                                                                  
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 15, 2024 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 23, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the Superior Court record, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Brian Tracey, appeals the Superior Court’s order 
sentencing him for a violation of probation (“VOP”).  After careful review of the 
parties’ respective arguments, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
In December 2022, Tracey pleaded guilty to one count of possession of 
a controlled substance.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced Tracey in 
accordance with the plea agreement to five years of incarceration, suspended for one 
year of Level III probation.  The court also ordered TASC monitoring and directed 
Tracey to submit to a substance abuse evaluation.  In January 2023, Tracey’s 
2 
 
probation officer filed an administrative warrant, alleging that Tracey had violated 
the terms of his probation by testing positive for illegal substances and failing to 
report to TASC as directed.  The Superior Court found that Tracey had violated the 
terms of his probation and resentenced him to four years and seven months of 
incarceration, suspended after one year of a Level III residential program, suspended 
after the successful completion of the Level III residential program, with the balance 
of the sentence suspended for nine months in an intensive outpatient treatment 
program. 
(3) 
In July 2023, Tracey’s probation officer filed an administrative warrant, 
asserting that Tracey had violated the terms of his probation by admitting to using 
Adderall without a prescription and testing positive for illegal substances.  At the 
July 24, 2023 VOP hearing, Tracey admitted to violating the terms of his probation.  
The Superior Court resentenced Tracey to four years, six months, and twenty-five 
days of incarceration, suspended for two years, suspended after the successful 
completion of a Level V drug treatment program, suspended for one year of Level 
IV supervision, suspended after the successful completion of a Level IV (DOC 
discretion) program and followed one year of Level III probation, the first six months 
of which is to be served in a sober living residence.  This appeal followed. 
3 
 
(4) 
On appeal, Tracey does not dispute that he violated the terms of his 
probation but argues that his sentence is “harsh” and “designed to ensure failure.”1  
Tracey’s arguments are without merit.  Our review of a VOP sentence is extremely 
limited. Once a defendant has admitted that he violated the terms of his probation, 
the Superior Court may impose any period of incarceration up to and including the 
balance of Level V time remaining on the original sentence.2  The sentence imposed 
for Tracey’s second VOP does not exceed the balance of the Level V time remaining 
on Tracey’s original sentence.  And Tracey’s claim that the Superior Court fashioned 
his sentence to ensure failure is clearly refuted by the VOP hearing transcript, which 
reflects that the court structured Tracey’s sentence to accommodate Tracey’s desire 
to participate in drug treatment programs while serving his VOP sentence. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court be AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice  
 
 
1 Opening Br. at 2. 
2 11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005).