Case Title: Bunting v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 465, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-03-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHAWN D. BUNTING,  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 465, 2004 
 
Defendant Below,  
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
in and for New Castle County 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§ 
Nos. 0006017614, 0003020930 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  February 4, 2005 
Decided:  March 7, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 7th day of March 2005, on consideration of the parties’ briefs, it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) The defendant-appellant, Shawn D. Bunting, appeals a sentence of 
the Superior Court after findings were made that he violated the conditions 
of his probation.  Bunting argues that the Superior Court lacked sufficiently 
reliable evidence to find him in possession of marijuana and cocaine found 
at his residence and, as a result, imposed an excessive sentence of five years 
at Level V incarceration.  Bunting requests that this Court vacate his 
sentence and remand with instructions to impose a shorter period of 
 
2
incarceration not to exceed one year.  We find Bunting’s argument 
unpersuasive.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2)  On September 14, 2000, Bunting pled guilty in the Superior Court 
to one count of trafficking cocaine (between 5 and 50 grams).1  He was 
sentenced to Level V incarceration suspended after a three year term of 
mandatory imprisonment, followed by six years of probationary supervision 
at various levels.  Bunting completed his three year term at Level V and was 
serving a period of Level III probation with a “zero tolerance for substance 
abuse” at the time of his arrest on July 28, 2004.  He was also serving 
probation on a separate conviction for possession of a deadly weapon by a 
person prohibited.2   
 
(3) On July 28, 2004, Bunting was observed operating a vehicle by his 
Probation Officer, Janet New.  Upon confirming that Bunting was operating 
the vehicle without a license, Officer New arranged for Bunting’s vehicle to 
be stopped by the police.  The officers searched Bunting’s vehicle and 
discovered sixteen bags of marijuana with a total weight of 13.5 grams.  
Thereafter, Officer New contacted the Governor’s Task Force to conduct an 
administrative search of Bunting’s residence.  During that search, the 
                                                 
1  
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4753A (2005).   
2  
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 1448A (2005). 
 
3
officers located 113.5 grams of marijuana and 1.7 grams of cocaine.  These 
drugs were located in a bedroom allegedly belonging to Bunting. 
 
(4)  At the VOP hearing, Officer New testified concerning the stop of 
Bunting’s vehicle and the drugs found in the bedroom.  Officer New further 
testified that she ascertained on prior occasions that the bedroom was where 
Bunting slept.  Papers found in the bedroom at the time of the search had 
Bunting’s name on them.  The Superior Court found that Bunting had 
violated the conditions of probation.  For the violation of probation on the 
trafficking conviction, Bunting was sentenced to five years imprisonment at 
Level V.  For the weapon offense, Bunting was sentenced to five years 
imprisonment at Level V which was suspended for one year at Level III. 
 
(5)  A sentence of probation is an “act of grace.”3  Likewise, the 
revocation of probation is an exercise of broad discretionary power.4  
Accordingly, we review for abuse of discretion the Superior Court’s 
revocation of a defendant’s probation.5  We also review a Superior Court’s 
sentencing decision to determine “whether the sentence is within the 
statutory limits prescribed by the General Assembly and whether it is based 
                                                 
3  
Brown v. State, 249 A.2d 269, 271-72 (Del. 1968) (citing Burns v. United States, 
287 U.S. 216 (1932); Brill v. State, 32 So.2d 607 (Fla. 1947); Scott v. State, 208 A.2d 575 
(Md. 1965)).   
4  
Id.   
5  
Fuller v. State, 844 A.2d 290, 291 (Del. 2004) (citing Brown, 249 A.2d at 271-
72).   
 
4
on factual predicates which are false, impermissible, or lack minimal 
reliability, judicial vindictiveness or bias, or a closed mind.”6   “When the 
sentence is within the statutory 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.”7 
 
(6)  In this appeal, Bunting does not dispute the fact that there was 
sufficient evidence to find him in violation of his probation with respect to 
his possession of the 13.5 grams of marijuana found in his vehicle.  Rather, 
it is Bunting’s contention that the Superior Court lacked sufficiently reliable 
evidence to find him in violation of his probation with respect to the 113.5 
grams of marijuana and 1.7 grams of cocaine found in his residence.  He 
argues that the Superior Court relied on impermissible hearsay to establish 
his possessory interest in the drugs found in the bedroom.   
 
(7) We first find Bunting’s argument unpersuasive because there was 
sufficient competent evidence in the record that Bunting had violated the 
terms of his probation with respect to the drugs found in the bedroom.  It is 
well-settled in Delaware that hearsay evidence is admissible at VOP 
hearings because the rules of evidence normally applicable in a criminal trial 
                                                 
6  
Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742, 746 (Del. 2003) (citing Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 
83 (Del. 1997); Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842-43 (Del. 1992)).   
7  
Id. (citing Samuel v. State, 1997 Del. LEXIS 133, at *3-*4).   
 
5
do not apply.8  At the VOP hearing, there must be some competent evidence 
to prove the probation violation, but the evidence need not establish guilt 
beyond a reasonable doubt.9  “All that is required is that the evidence and 
facts be such as to reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the 
probationer has not been as good as required by the conditions of 
probation.”10  In this case, sufficient competent evidence exists in the record 
to support the Superior Court’s finding that Bunting had violated the terms 
of his probation.  At the VOP hearing, Officer New testified that she visited 
Bunting’s residence on two or three occasions and had ascertained from both 
Bunting and his family members that the bedroom in question belonged to 
Bunting.  Furthermore, the officers, including Officer New, found papers in 
the bedroom bearing Bunting’s name.  These facts support the Superior 
Court’s finding.  Therefore, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion 
by finding Bunting in violation of the conditions of his probation.    
 
(8)  We also conclude that the Superior Court did not abuse its 
discretion by finding Bunting in violation of the terms of his probation based 
on the fact that he was serving Level III probation with a “zero tolerance for 
substance abuse” at the time his vehicle was stopped.  The fact that Bunting 
                                                 
8 
Brown, 249 A.2d at 272.     
9 
Id.   
10 
Id.   
 
6
acknowledges his probation violation with respect to the marijuana found in 
his vehicle subjected him to potential imprisonment up to the balance of his 
suspended sentence.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgments 
of the Superior Court are AFFIRMED.     
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice