Jenkins v. State
8 A.3d 1147
Del.2010Background
- Jenkins pled guilty in 2001 to trafficking cocaine and maintaining a vehicle for keeping controlled substances, receiving mixed Level V incarceration and Level III probation terms.
- In 2005 Jenkins faced probation violation charges; suppression motions and resentencing led to a six-year Level V sentence with suspended portions for trafficking and a three-year Level V sentence suspended for Level III probation.
- April 2009 re-violation resulted in resentencing to two years at Level V with various suspensions at Level III and concurrent Level III probation for a maintaining-a-vehicle violation.
- On January 8, 2010, Jenkins was arrested on four new drug charges; the State filed an administrative warrant listing those charges plus other violations for a VOP hearing.
- April 14, 2010, at the contested VOP hearing, probation officer Boykin and Detective Stout testified about address changes, dirty urine screens, and new drug-trafficking evidence from the Barrett Lane residence.
- June 7, 2010, the Superior Court granted suppression in the co-pending criminal case, dismissing the charges; Jenkins appealed the April 14 VOP sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insufficient evidence to prove VOP by a preponderance | Jenkins | Jenkins | No error; ample competent evidence supported VOP finding |
| Due process: notice and uncharged misconduct | Jenkins | Jenkins | Notice prior actual; uncharged misconduct properly considered without plain error |
| Sentencing discretion and potential impermissible factors | Jenkins | Jenkins | No abuse of discretion; no demonstrated closed mind or reliance on improper facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159 (Del. 2006) (probation revocation requires competent evidence linking to violation)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (due process in probation hearings; notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742 (Del. 2003) (sentencing review within statutory limits; no abuse unless impermissible factors)
- Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839 (Del. 1992) (procedural requirements and standards in Delaware probation revocation)
- LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103 (Del. 2008) (evidentiary application to probation revocation and exclusionary considerations)
- Brown v. State, 249 A.2d 269 (Del. 1968) (constitutional due process standards in criminal procedure)