IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JACOB SANTIAGO, §
§ No. 235, 2014
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware,
STATE OF DELAWARE, § in and for New Castle County
§ Cr. ID 1112008352
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: September 10, 2014
Decided: September 30, 2014
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices.
ORDER
This 30th day of September 2014, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Jacob Santiago, filed this appeal from the
Superior Court’s order, dated April 9, 2014, sentencing him for a violation of
probation (VOP). The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment
below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Santiago’s opening brief that
his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) The record reflects that Santiago pled guilty on June 6, 2012 to
Aggravated Drug Dealing.1 The Superior Court immediately sentenced Santiago
to ten years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after six months for six
months at Level IV Home Confinement followed by one year at Level III
probation. In January 2014, police arrested Santiago, charging him with Carrying
a Concealed Deadly Weapon, Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person
Prohibited, and Resisting Arrest.2 As a result of these new criminal charges,
Santiago was charged with a VOP for violating the conditions of his probation that
prohibited him from possessing a firearm and from committing new criminal
offenses. Following a hearing, the Superior Court found Santiago had violated
probation and sentenced him to nine years at Level V incarceration, to be
suspended after two years for six months at Level III probation. Santiago now
appeals.
(3) In his opening brief on appeal, Santiago does not dispute that he
committed the VOP as charged. His only contention on appeal is that the officers
who arrested him used excessive force and broke his arm, which required surgery
and caused him permanent disability.
1
16 Del. C. § 4752(2).
2
A Superior Court jury ultimately found Santiago guilty of all three charges on August 13, 2014.
2
(4) The issue Santiago raises, however, is not cognizable in this appeal
from his VOP sentence. This Court reviews a VOP finding for abuse of
discretion.3 In a VOP hearing, the State is only required to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms of his
probation.4 A preponderance of evidence means “some competent evidence” to
“reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as
good as required by the conditions of probation.”5 In this case, Santiago does not
dispute that he was in possession of a weapon in violation of the terms of his
probation. Accordingly, we find no basis to overturn the Superior Court’s
judgment.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely
Justice
3
Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006).
4
Id.
5
Id. (quoting Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006)).
3