Jenkins v. Morgan
28 F. Supp. 3d 270
D. Del.2014Background
- Petitioner David Jenkins, a Delaware inmate, challenged a 2010 probation-violation proceeding (VOP) in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition.
- Petitioner was originally convicted in 2001 of trafficking in cocaine and maintaining a vehicle for keeping controlled substances, with suspended sentences and probation.
- He violated probation in 2005 and 2009; in 2010 he faced new drug charges and a VOP alleging those violations along with a residence-change failure.
- The VOP hearing (April 14, 2010) focused on four new drug charges, residence information, and related evidence found at the Barrett Lane residence, including a lease, drugs, and cash.
- The Superior Court revoked probation, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, applying Rule 8 plain-error review, after which petitioner sought federal habeas relief on multiple due-process theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there written notice of probation violations? | Jenkins argues he did not receive proper written notice via charging document. | State contends notice was satisfied by the VOP report and actual notice of charges. | Claim denied; notice satisfied by actual notice and VOP report. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to revoke probation? | Jenkins contends revocation rested on uncharged conduct and insufficient evidence. | State asserts there was evidence (first-hand testimony) supporting violation. | Claim denied; some evidence supported the revocation. |
| Was there a written statement of the evidence and reasons for revocation? | Petitioner claims no written statement of decision was provided. | State asserts the transcript suffices as the written basis for revocation. | Claim denied; transcript and record satisfy written-statement requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Lee, 283 F.3d 190 (4th Cir.2002) (notice can be adequate even if indictment is deficient)
- United States v. Littlejohn, 508 F. App’x 123 (3d Cir.2013) (petition satisfies written notice under Rule 32.1)
- United States v. Barnhart, 980 F.2d 219 (3d Cir.1992) (Gagnon notice standards applied in revocation)
- Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) (some evidence standard applies to revocation findings)
- Douglas v. Buder, 412 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1973) ("some evidence" due-process standard for probation revocation)
- Copley v. United States, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir.1992) (written reasons for revocation can be satisfied by transcript)
- Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1989) (adequacy of state-ground rulings for federal review)