Jenkins v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the revocation of David Jenkins's probation and the reimposition of suspended incarceration following technical violations and new drug-related conduct. The Court held that competent evidence supported the violation finding, that Jenkins had actual notice and was not prejudiced by consideration of controlled-buy evidence, and that the sentencing judge neither relied on impermissible information nor exhibited a closed mind. Because Jenkins had not preserved these claims, the Court reviewed them for plain error and found none.

Holdings

1. The Superior Court had competent evidence to find that Jenkins violated probation. Testimony from the probation officer concerning the technical violations and firsthand testimony from the investigating officer supplied sufficient evidence, and the court did not commit plain error in revoking probation.
2. Jenkins could not establish a due process violation because he had actual prior notice of the drug charges and technical violations underlying the probation proceeding, even assuming formal written notice was lacking.
3. Considering testimony about the controlled buys did not constitute plain error or deprive Jenkins of due process because he did not object or cross-examine the witness, and the uncontested technical violations independently supported revocation.
4. The sentencing judge did not commit plain error or abuse discretion. The record showed that the judge knew Jenkins's prior federal conviction was for credit-card fraud rather than drug trafficking, and the judge did not exhibit a closed mind by considering evidence not challenged through a suppression motion at the violation hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether competent evidence supported the finding that Jenkins violated probation.
2. Whether Jenkins was denied due process because he allegedly lacked written notice of the violations and because the court considered the controlled buys as uncharged misconduct.
3. Whether the sentencing judge abused discretion by relying on inaccurate information or exhibiting a closed mind in imposing the sentence.

Disposition

affirmed