Case Title: Jenkins v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 261, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-12-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID JENKINS, 
 
§ 
 
 
§ 
No. 261, 2010 
 
Defendant Below, 
§ 
 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below: Superior Court of  
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
              v. 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§ 
Cr. I.D. No. 0104000981 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted:  September 15, 2010 
 
 
Decided:     December 6, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
Upon Appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED. 
 
 
Michael W. Modica, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware; for Appellant. 
 
 
Susan Dwyer Riley, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware; 
for Appellee. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JACOBS, Justice: 
 
 
David Jenkins (“Jenkins”), the defendant-below, appeals from a Superior 
Court order finding him in violation of his probation, revoking his previous Level 
II probation sentence, and sentencing him to four years and ten months of 
incarceration at Level V supervision.  On appeal, Jenkins claims that: the trial 
court’s findings are not supported by competent evidence, his due process rights 
were violated, and the sentence imposed was an abuse of discretion.  We find no 
error and affirm.   
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 
In 2001, Jenkins pled guilty to one count each of trafficking in cocaine 
(“trafficking”)1 and maintaining a vehicle for the keeping of controlled substances 
(“maintaining a vehicle”).2  The Superior Court sentenced him as follows:  (a) for 
trafficking, ten years of Level V incarceration, suspended after four years 
(minimum mandatory) for the balance at Level III probation; and (b) for 
maintaining a vehicle, three years at Level V incarceration, suspended immediately 
for three years’ probation. 
                                                 
1 16 Del. C. § 4753A(a)(2). 
 
2 16 Del. C. § 4755(a)(5). 
 
2 
 
In 2005, Jenkins was charged with violating his probation after being 
arrested on new, unrelated drug charges.3  Jenkins contested the charges and 
moved to suppress evidence in both the underlying criminal case and his violation 
of probation (“VOP”) hearing.4  At the VOP hearing, the motion to suppress was 
dismissed for “failure to prosecute,” because Jenkins did not appear.5  At a 
rescheduled VOP hearing, the judge held that Jenkins had failed properly to renew 
his motion.  Based on the evidence presented, the trial court resentenced Jenkins to 
six years at Level V, suspended after four years for decreasing levels of probation 
(for trafficking), and three years at Level V, suspended immediately for eighteen 
months at Level III probation (for maintaining a vehicle). 
 
Jenkins’ motion to suppress was granted in the co-pending criminal case, 
however, and those charges were later dismissed.6  Thereafter, Jenkins appealed his 
2005 VOP sentence on the ground that the Superior Court erred in finding that he 
had violated his probation based on evidence that ultimately was suppressed.7  This 
                                                 
3 Jenkins v. State, 903 A.2d 323 (Table), 2006 WL 1911096, at *1 (Del. 2006) (hereinafter 
“Jenkins I”).  An administrative warrant was filed in Jenkins’ 2005 VOP hearing based on the 
new drug charges. 
 
4 A summary of the 2005 VOP hearing can be found in this Court’s opinion affirming Jenkins’ 
resentencing.  See id.  
 
5 The VOP hearing and suppression hearing were scheduled for the same day.  Jenkins 
apparently appeared at court, but left before the hearings began.  
 
6 Jenkins I, 2006 WL 1911096, at *1. 
 
7 Id. at *2. 
3 
Court affirmed, holding that Jenkins had waived his right to present a motion to 
suppress in the 2005 VOP hearing.8 
 
Jenkins later moved for post-conviction relief, which the Superior Court 
denied, and this Court dismissed Jenkins’ direct appeal as untimely.9  Between 
October 2006 and August 2008, Jenkins filed three motions to modify or reduce 
his 2005 VOP sentence, all of which the Superior Court denied. 
 
In April 2009, Jenkins again violated his probation and was resentenced to 
two years at Level V, with credit for nine days previously served, suspended after 
thirty days for eighteen months at Level III (trafficking charge); and three years at 
Level V, suspended for eighteen months of concurrent Level III probation 
(maintaining a vehicle). 
 
On January 8, 2010, the police arrested Jenkins on four new drug charges:  
(1) trafficking in cocaine;10 (2) possession with intent to distribute cocaine;11 (3) 
maintaining a dwelling for keeping controlled substances;12 and (4) possession of 
                                                 
8 Id. 
 
9 See Jenkins v. State, 937 A.2d 140 (Table), 2007 WL 3262144 (Del. 2007) (hereinafter 
“Jenkins II”). 
 
10 16 Del. C. § 4753(A)(a)(2). 
 
11 16 Del. C. § 4751. 
 
12 16 Del. C. § 4755(a)(5). 
 
4 
drug paraphernalia.13  The State filed an administrative warrant, listing the new 
drug charges, together with other technical violations, as grounds for finding 
Jenkins in violation of his probation. 
 
Jenkins contested the administrative warrant, and a VOP hearing was 
scheduled for March 3, 2010.  Jenkins’ counsel requested a continuance to have 
additional time to review discovery.  The Superior Court granted the continuance, 
and rescheduled the contested VOP hearing to April 14, 2010.  On March 29, 
2010, Jenkins moved to suppress the evidence in the co-pending criminal trial.  He 
did not, however, file a suppression motion in connection with the upcoming April 
14th contested VOP hearing. 
 
At the April 14th VOP hearing, the trial judge heard testimony from Jenkins’ 
probation officer, Jeffery Boykin (“Boykin”), and Corporal Dewey Stout, a 
detective with the Delaware State Police drug unit.  Boykin testified that Jenkins’ 
technical violations included “failure to report a change in address” and “two dirty 
urine screens for marijuana.”  As for the address change, Boykin testified that 
although Jenkins reported his address as 1000 Wright Street in Wilmington (the 
“Wright Street” residence), he was actually living at 917 Barrett Lane in Newark 
(the “Barrett Lane” residence).  Corporal Stout testified that he never saw Jenkins 
                                                 
13 16 Del. C. § 4771. 
 
5 
at the Wright Street residence,14 but observed him at the Barrett Lane residence on 
multiple occasions.15  When Corporal Stout arrested Jenkins, he found a key to the 
Barrett Lane residence, and during a search of that residence he also found a lease 
agreement for Barrett Lane which listed only Jenkins as the lessee.16 
 
Regarding the new drug charges, Corporal Stout testified that he had 
received information from a confidential source (“CS”) that Jenkins was selling 
cocaine.  Based on that information, Corporal Stout conducted two “controlled 
buys” by the CS from Jenkins.17  Corporal Stout testified that the substance the CS 
turned over from the first controlled buy “field-tested positive.”  After the second 
controlled buy, Corporal Stout met with the CS, who again turned over “an amount 
of cocaine.” 
 
Based on the results of the two controlled buys and his surveillance of the 
Barrett Lane residence, Corporal Stout obtained a warrant to search that residence.  
                                                 
14 Corporal Stout testified that he conducted spot checks of Jenkins’ Wright Street residence, but 
never saw Jenkins there.  After the first controlled buy, Corporal Stout followed Jenkins to the 
Barrett Lane address.  Stout also testified that the police conducted additional surveillance of the 
Barrett Lane address, and observed Jenkins at the residence and exiting from the residence 
during the second controlled buy.   
 
15 Corporal Stout observed the Barrett Lane residence on approximately seven to ten occasions at 
various times and on different days.   
 
16 The lease agreement itself was never produced.   
 
17 A “controlled buy” is where the police meet with the CS and provide the CS with state funds 
to complete a drug transaction.  The CS turns over the drugs from the sale, and the police ran a 
field test on the contents.   
 
6 
Using Jenkins’ key, he searched the Barrett Lane residence and found a lease 
agreement bearing Jenkins’ name and 34.1 grams of powder cocaine, separated 
into three bags.  He also found a small digital scale, a cocaine press, a bottle of 
inositol,18 and $2,715 in cash. 
 
Jenkins’ counsel requested the sentencing judge to disregard the testimony 
regarding the new drug charges, because a suppression motion had been filed in 
the co-pending criminal case.  Noting that Jenkins had not filed a suppression 
motion with respect to the VOP hearing, the sentencing judge found that there was 
“ample evidence to find the defendant guilty of violating his probation by 
delivering controlled substances by trafficking.”  At the April 14th VOP hearing, 
the judge reimposed all of the suspended jail time from Jenkins’ earlier (2001) 
convictions for trafficking and maintaining a vehicle, based on Jenkins’ repeated 
probation violations. 
 
On June 7, 2010, the Superior Court granted the suppression motion in the 
co-pending criminal case, and dismissed all of the charges.  Jenkins now appeals 
from his April 14th VOP sentencing. 
ANALYSIS 
 
On appeal, Jenkins advances three reasons why this Court should reverse the 
trial court’s revocation of his probation.  Jenkins admits that he failed to raise any 
                                                 
18 Inositol is a sugar that is readily purchasable from health food stores such as GNC.  It is sold 
as a white powder and is commonly used as a cutting agent in preparing cocaine for sale.   
7 
of these issues at the April 14th contested VOP hearing.  He asserts, however, that 
the trial court’s VOP determination was plain error and deprived him of substantial 
rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 
Constitution, and Article 1, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution.19 
 
This Court normally reviews a trial court’s revocation of a defendant’s 
probation for abuse of discretion.20  Jenkins’ claims, however, are reviewable only 
for plain error because he failed to assert them at the April 14th contested VOP 
hearing.21  Under the “plain error” doctrine, we are “limited to material defects 
which are apparent on the face of the record, which are basic, serious, and 
fundamental in their character, and which clearly deprive an accused of a 
substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.”22 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
19 Jenkins argues that this Court should apply the “interest of justice” exception pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 8, which provides:  “Only questions fairly presented to the trial court may 
be presented for review; provided, however, that when the interests of justice so require, the 
Court may consider and determine any question not so presented.”  Because we address Jenkins’ 
claim under the plain error review standard, we do not reach his arguments that review is 
warranted under Rule 8. 
 
20 Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006); Brown v. State, 249 A.2d 269, 271-72 (Del. 
1968). 
 
21 DEL. SUP. CT. R. 8; see also Cruz v. State, 990 A.2d 409, 412 (Del. 2010). 
 
22 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 
8 
 
I. Jenkins’ Claim That There Was Insufficient 
 
 
Evidence   To  Support  The  Trial  Court’s  
 
 
Finding  That  He  Violated  His Probation       
   
 
Jenkins first claims that the State failed to present competent evidence to 
support the trial court’s finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he 
violated his probation.  He argues that the State’s evidence was based 
predominately on hearsay, rather than upon the first-hand knowledge of testifying 
witnesses.23  Jenkins also contends that the State provided “no evidence” in support 
of the reported “positive” urine screens. 
 
Although hearsay evidence is admissible in VOP hearings, our law requires 
“some competent evidence to prove the violation asserted.”24  Further, if the 
defendant denies violating his probation, there must be some competent evidence 
linking the defendant to the crime.25  The evidence must “reasonably satisfy the 
judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the 
                                                 
23 Jenkins alleges the following as hearsay:  (1) that a CS provided the police with information 
concerning Jenkins selling cocaine; (2) the CS’s claim that he purchased cocaine from Jenkins 
during the controlled buys; (3) that the substance obtained from the second controlled buy tested 
positive as cocaine; (4) the verbal statement that the lease found contained Jenkins’ name; and 
(5) the claim that the 34.1 grams of cocaine seized at the Barrett Lane residence had tested 
positive.   
 
24 Collins, 897 A.2d at 160 (quoting Brown, 249 A.2d at 272). 
 
25 Id. at 161 (“[A] defendant’s admission of the alleged crime is considered sufficient competent 
evidence to revoke probation, but where the defendant has not admitted to violating his 
probation, some competent evidence linking the defendant to the crime is necessary.”). 
 
9 
conditions of the probation.”26  Although the State does not need to establish guilt 
beyond a reasonable doubt, probation cannot be revoked solely upon the basis of 
testimony from a witness who has “no first-hand knowledge of the events 
constituting the violations.”27 
 
Jenkins’ claim fails for three reasons.  First, his argument that the State 
presented insufficient or no evidence to prove his failure to report a change of 
address and failed urine screens is unfounded.  Boykin testified about Jenkins’ 
failure to report his address change and the positive urine screens, and Jenkins 
presented no evidence to controvert that testimony.  Nor did Jenkins dispute or 
challenge Boykin’s testimony at the hearing or suggest that Boykin’s testimony 
was not credible.28 
 
Second, Corporal Stout testified that he personally conducted most of the 
surveillance and investigation leading to Jenkins’ arrest on the new drug charges.  
Corporal Stout personally observed Jenkins at the Barrett Lane residence on 
multiple occasions, and he led the search of that residence where the lease 
                                                 
26 Id. at 160.  For example, this Court has previously held that a defendant’s positive drug test 
results and admission of using drugs are sufficient to support a finding of a probation violation.  
Melody v. State, 808 A.2d 1204 (Table), 2002 WL 31355234, at *2 (Del. 2002). 
 
27 Collins, 897 A.2d at 160-61; Simmons v. State, 788 A.2d 132 (Table), 2001 WL 175677, at *1 
(Del. 2001) (holding that it was an abuse of discretion to revoke the defendant’s probation based 
solely on testimony from a witness with no first-hand knowledge of the alleged incidents where 
the State failed to present any reports from the facility where the alleged violations took place, 
and where the defendant denied the allegations). 
 
28 A review of the April 14th contested VOP hearing transcript reveals that Jenkins did not 
present any evidence in his defense.  
10 
agreement, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia were found.  Therefore, Corporal 
Stout’s testimony was based on firsthand observations of which he had personal 
knowledge.  It was not hearsay. 
 
Third, the trial court was permitted to consider any competent evidence in 
deciding whether to revoke a defendant’s probation.  Jenkins contends that because 
it is hearsay, the CS information should not be considered “competent evidence.”  
But, as this Court has stated, the evidence need only “reasonably satisfy the judge 
that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the 
conditions of the probation.”29  Here, the trial judge had sufficient independent 
evidence, including evidence of uncontested technical violations as well as 
Corporal Stout’s and Boykin’s testimony, upon which to find that Jenkins had 
violated his probation.  The trial judge did not commit plain error in revoking 
Jenkins’ probation. 
 
II. Jenkins’  Claim  That  He   Was   
 
 
Denied His Due Process Rights 
 
 
Next, Jenkins claims that his due process rights under the United States and 
Delaware Constitutions were violated because: (1) he was not given written notice 
of the alleged violations, and (2) the trial court erroneously considered his 
“uncharged misconduct” (the two controlled buys) in revoking his probation, 
because that misconduct was not listed on the administrative warrant. 
                                                 
29 Collins, 897 A.2d at 160. 
11 
A.  Jenkins’ Written Notice Claim 
 
Although a defendant accused of a probation violation is not entitled to a 
formal trial,30 the United States Supreme Court has held that in a VOP hearing 
certain “minimum requirements of due process” must be satisfied.31  In Delaware, 
those requirements are set forth in Superior Court Criminal Rule 32.1.  That Rule 
provides that a defendant accused of a probation violation is entitled to:  (i) a bail 
hearing; (ii) written notice of the alleged violation; (iii) disclosure of the evidence 
against the person; (iv) an opportunity to appear and present evidence; (v) an 
opportunity to question adverse witnesses; and (vi) notice of the right to retain 
counsel.32 
 
Jenkins’ due process claim lacks merit.  Even assuming that Jenkins did not 
receive written notice of the alleged violations, he had prior actual notice.  The 
record shows that Jenkins knew about the drug charges, and the technical 
violations of which he was charged, before the April 14th hearing.  On March 23rd, 
Jenkins had moved to suppress evidence in the co-pending criminal case.  In 
addition, before the April 14th VOP hearing began, Jenkins’ counsel stated his 
understanding that new drug charges and two dirty urine screens were the basis for 
                                                 
30 11 Del. C. § 4334(c) (providing that a VOP hearing may be informal or summary). 
 
31 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973). 
 
32 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 32.1(a). 
 
12 
the alleged VOP.  Because he had actual notice of the violations, Jenkins cannot 
now claim that his due process rights were violated. 
B.  The “Uncharged Misconduct” Claim 
 
Jenkins also claims that his due process rights were violated because the trial 
judge improperly considered Corporal Stout’s testimony about “uncharged 
misconduct” (i.e., the two controlled buys).  Jenkins argues that he did not have 
fair notice of what the State intended to prove at the hearing, because the two 
controlled buys were not listed or referenced on the administrative warrant.  He 
further contends that the State’s evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, 
because the sentencing judge likely believed that Jenkins had participated in the 
two controlled buys and, therefore, was criminally responsible for the items seized 
at the Barrett Lane residence. 
 
 
Again, assuming without deciding that the disclosure Jenkins received 
did not mention the two controlled buys,33 Jenkins’ claim cannot succeed because 
he has not shown prejudice or that the Superior Court committed plain error.  
Jenkins never objected to Corporal Stout’s testimony about the two controlled 
buys.  Nor did his defense counsel cross-examine Stout about them, despite having 
the opportunity to do so at the hearing.  Further, the technical violations alone 
would have been enough to revoke Jenkins’ probation, and Jenkins never contested 
                                                 
33 It is unclear what was disclosed in the discovery documents. 
 
13 
those violations.  In short, Jenkins cannot show that the evidence regarding the two 
controlled buys was prejudicial, or that the trial judge’s VOP determination was 
plain error. 
 
III. 
 Jenkins’  Claim  That  The   Sentencing  Judge 
 
 
 Abused   His    Discretion    By    Relying    On    
 
 
 Impermissible Factors And Exhibited A Closed 
 
 
 Mind                                                                 
 
 
In support of his third claim, Jenkins advances two reasons why the 
sentencing judge abused his discretion by imposing the maximum jail sentence:  
(1) the decision was based on inaccurate information regarding Jenkins’ prior 
federal conviction, and (2) the judge exhibited a “closed mind” by ignoring the fact 
that the search warrant was blatantly defective. 
A.  Jenkins’ Federal Conviction Claim 
 
Jenkins contends that the judge must have based his sentencing decision on 
Jenkins’ earlier federal conviction, because the judge did not expressly reject the 
prosecutor’s argument based on the prior federal conviction.  This claim is 
unfounded.  The State told the trial court that Jenkins had a previous federal 
conviction for drug trafficking, but Jenkins was actually convicted of credit card 
fraud.  The record shows that Jenkins himself corrected the State when it misspoke.  
At the time of sentencing, therefore, the sentencing judge was fully aware that 
Jenkins had actually been convicted for credit card fraud, and not federal drug 
trafficking.  Although Jenkins argues that the sentencing judge did not expressly 
14 
reject the State’s inaccurate statement, there is no record evidence that the judge 
based his decision on it either.  Jenkins has failed to show that the sentencing 
judge’s decision was plain error. 
B.  The “Closed Mind” Claim 
 
Finally, Jenkins argues that the sentencing judge exhibited a “closed mind” 
by not considering his suppression motion at the VOP hearing, and concluding that 
“it was unlikely one would be successful even in a prosecution.”  Jenkins claims 
that because the suppression motion was ultimately granted in his co-pending 
criminal case, the sentencing judge erred by failing to recognize that the search 
warrant was, on its face, legally defective.34 
 
This Court’s review of a sentence is limited to whether the sentence is within 
the statutory limits.35  Where the sentence falls within those limits, “this Court will 
not find an abuse of discretion unless it is clear that the sentencing judge relied on 
impermissible factors or exhibited a closed mind.”36  A judge exhibits a “closed 
mind” where “the sentence is based on a preconceived bias without consideration 
                                                 
34 The suppression motion in the co-pending criminal case was granted almost two months after 
the April 14th VOP hearing, on the basis that there were insufficient facts to support a nighttime 
search warrant.  In Delaware, a nighttime search warrant requires additional probable cause to 
believe that the issuance of the nighttime warrant is necessary in order to prevent the escape or 
removal of the person or thing to be searched for.  See 11 Del. C. § 2308. 
 
35 Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 83 (Del. 1997); Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842-43 (Del. 1992). 
 
36 Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003). 
 
15 
of the nature of the offense or the character of the defendant.”37  A judge is 
permitted to have “some preconceived notion about the proper sentence to be 
imposed,” but cannot “have closed his mind upon the subject” before the 
proceeding.38  That is, the judge must have an “open mind at least to the extent of 
receiving all information bearing on the question of mitigation.”39 
 
Jenkins has not shown that the sentencing judge acted with a “closed mind” 
by failing to consider any mitigating evidence, because Jenkins presented no 
mitigating evidence in his defense.  In fact, Jenkins did not present any evidence at 
the hearing.  Although Jenkins asserted that a suppression motion had been filed in 
the co-pending criminal case, he did not file a suppression motion in the contested 
VOP hearing, even though he knew that one should have been filed if he wanted 
the court to exclude the evidence.40  Accordingly, when imposing the sentence, 
there was no reason for the sentencing judge not to consider the evidence resulting 
                                                 
37 Id. 
 
38 Osburn v. State, 224 A.2d 52, 53 (Del. 1966). 
 
39 Id.  
 
40 For example, Jenkins had filed a suppression motion in both his 2005 contested VOP hearing 
as well as the co-pending criminal case. 
 
16 
from the search and seizure, since no motion to suppress had been filed.41  
Although a suppression motion was later granted in the co-pending criminal case, 
it would have been improper for the sentencing judge to decide the search 
warrant’s validity in the VOP hearing where that issue had not been properly 
raised.  Jenkins has failed to show that the sentencing judge’s decision was plain 
error. 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. 
                                                 
41 This Court has not yet addressed whether the exclusionary rule should apply to violation of 
probation hearings.  LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103, 1111 n.42 (Del. 2008); Fuller v. State, 
844 A.2d 290, 293 (Del. 2004) (“[W]e do not reach the State’s argument that the exclusionary 
rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings.”).  Two Superior Court cases have held 
that the exclusionary rule does not apply even where the defendant has timely moved for 
suppression in the VOP hearing.  See State v. Waters, 2007 WL 1098120, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. 
Apr. 11, 2007); State v. Kinard, 2005 WL 2373701, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 28, 2005) (noting 
the split in authority).