Title: Simmons v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 72, 2000
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 2, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAMAR M. SIMMONS,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 72, 2000 
 
 
Defendant-Below,  
 
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
 
)  Cr. No. VN98-07-0672-01 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiff-Below, 
 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  November 14, 2000 
Decided:  February 2, 2001 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 2nd day of February 2001, it appears to the Court that: 
 
 
1. 
Lamar M. Simmons appeals the Superior Court’s decision to 
discharge him from a boot camp diversion program and to sentence him to three 
years at Level V after finding him in violation of the boot camp diversion program 
rules.  Simmons argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion by relying 
only on hearsay evidence to discharge him from the boot camp program and thus 
violated his due process rights1.  Because we find that the Superior Court abused 
its discretion by finding that Simmons violated the boot camp diversion rules  
                                                 
1 Brown v. State, Del. Supr., 249 A.2d 269 (1968). 
 
2 
solely upon hearsay testimony without any competent or reliable evidence to 
support that finding, we REVERSE and REMAND for further action in accordance 
with this order. 
2. 
Simmons pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine on August 31, 1998.  
His plea agreement called for him to enter a boot camp diversion program.  A 
multidisciplinary team (“MDT”) later administratively discharged him after 
finding that he had unauthorized communications with female inmates, had 
unauthorized possession of food, and had been in a bathroom during a time that the 
bathroom was considered “off limits.”  After a hearing in the Superior Court in 
which Simmons and Hansel Fuller, boot camp counselor, testified, the Superior 
Court discharged Simmons from the boot camp diversion program and sentenced 
him to three years at Level V. 
3. 
This Court reviews the Superior Court’s decision to terminate the 
defendant from the boot camp diversion program for abuse of discretion.2  Claims 
of constitutional violations are reviewed de novo.3  
 
4. 
Simmons argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion by 
relying solely on hearsay evidence to discharge him from the boot camp diversion 
program, and by so doing violated his due process rights.  To support his argument,  
                                                 
2 Id. at 271. 
3 Williamson v. State, Del. Supr., 707 a.2d 350, 354 (1998). 
 
3 
Simmons points out that the only evidence the State presented to the Superior 
Court was the testimony of Fuller, the boot camp counselor.  Fuller testified at the 
Superior Court hearing, over an objection by Simmons’ counsel, about specific 
incidents of misconduct that lead to Simmons’ discharge.  Fuller conceded, 
however, that he had no first-hand knowledge of any of the incidents.  In addition, 
Simmons contends that the State produced no record of the alleged violations 
presented to the MDT or the procedural protections provided Simmons by the 
MDT. 
 
5. 
In Brown v. State,4 this Court found that it was an abuse of discretion 
for the Superior Court to revoke a term of probation and impose a prison sentence 
based solely on hearsay evidence, holding that “a probation revocation may not 
stand unless there be some competent evidence to prove the violation asserted,”5 
citing, however, several cases finding no abuse of discretion in relying on hearsay 
evidence when there is other competent evidence to supplement the hearsay 
evidence and sustain the revocation.6 
 
6. 
In this case, the Superior Court found that Simmons violated the boot 
camp diversion program rules after being cited for a violation of probation.  
Nevertheless, because Simmons is entitled to a hearing under 11 Del. C. § 6712(h), 
                                                 
4 Del. Supr., 249 A.2d 269, 272 (1968).   
5 Id. at 272. 
6 Id. 
 
4 
it follows that it is an abuse of discretion for the Superior Court to rely solely on 
hearsay evidence to discharge him from the boot camp diversion program.  The 
State presented a witness who had no first-hand knowledge of the events 
constituting the violations.  The State presented no other evidence to supplement 
the hearsay, and Simmons denied he committed the acts constituting the 
violations.7  The adverse consequences to Simmons are obvious – the Court 
sentenced him to three years at Level V as a direct result of the violation of the 
boot camp diversion rules. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, this matter is REVERSED and 
REMANDED to the Superior Court for a new hearing consistent with this Order.  
Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele______________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
7 See Liles v. State, 620 A.2d 858 (1992) (finding that the defendant’s own admissions during the 
probation revocation hearing corroborated the counselor’s statements).