Smack v. State, 601, 2016

Adrin Smack pleaded guilty to multiple drug-dealing counts, one count of possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, and one count of second-degree conspiracy; statutory sentencing range after plea was 2–76 years.
FBI intercepted Smack’s phone communications and a subsequent search of his codefendant’s home recovered firearms, $16,108 cash, and 803 bundles of heroin; the State argued Smack was a drug “kingpin.”
At sentencing the State urged a 15-year term based on kingpin-level conduct; Smack sought an evidentiary hearing and argued the State must prove kingpin status by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Superior Court denied an evidentiary hearing, applied a "minimal indicia of reliability" standard for sentencing facts, and imposed an aggregate sentence of 14 years at Level V (with subsequent levels of supervision).
Smack appealed, asserting denial of due process by (1) refusing an evidentiary hearing and (2) applying the wrong burden of proof; the Delaware Supreme Court reviewed legal/constitutional claims de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing facts that increase sentence within statutory range must be proved by a preponderance	Smack: State must prove kingpin status by preponderance of the evidence	State: Court may consider reliable information meeting a minimal indicium of reliability	Court: Preponderance standard from federal guidelines inapplicable; minimal indicia of reliability suffices when sentence is within statutory range
Whether due process requires a full evidentiary hearing at sentencing	Smack: Entitled to evidentiary hearing and cross-examination to contest kingpin evidence	State: No full hearing required; defendant can rebut or explain evidence at sentencing	Court: Due process does not require full evidentiary hearing; defendant had opportunity to rebut and did so
Whether intercepted communications and investigative facts may be considered at sentencing	Smack: Challenged reliability and weight of such evidence	State: May rely on investigatory materials with minimal reliability	Court: Such evidence may be considered if it meets minimal indicia of reliability; court properly relied on them
Whether Mayes precedent governs Delaware sentencing evidentiary standard	Smack: Argued Mayes inapplicable or not contested	State: Mayes controls Delaware law on minimal indicium standard	Court: Mayes applies; subsequent Delaware cases follow same standard

Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839 (Del. 1992) (establishes "minimal indicium of reliability" standard for facts considered at sentencing)
Zebroski v. State, 12 A.3d 1115 (Del. 2010) (confirms de novo review for legal/constitutional sentencing claims)
Davenport v. State, 150 A.3d 274 (Del. 2016) (applies Mayes standard in post-plea sentencing review)
United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (federal guidance on considering conduct at sentencing under guidelines)
Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (1994) (federal precedent on sentencing factfinding and guidelines)
McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986) (federal case on due process and sentencing fact determinations)