Title: Mayhew v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 27, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOHN C. MAYHEW,
§
§
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§ No. 82, 2001
§  
v.
§ Court Below: Superior Court 
§ of the State of Delaware in and
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§ for New Castle County
§ Cr. A. No. 98-11-007926
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: September 26, 2001
Decided:
September 27, 2001
Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 27th day of September 2001, upon consideration of the briefs of the
parties, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, John C. Mayhew (“Mayhew”), appeals from a Superior
Court determination that he had violated the conditions of his probation.  Mayhew
argues that since, technically, at least, his probation had not yet formally begun the
court had no legal basis for finding a violation.  He also complains that the basis for
the violation was presented through hearsay testimony by his Probation Officer.  We
find no merit in either contention.
2
(2)
It is clear from the record that Mayhew’s delayed entry into formal
probation was attributable to his failure to report for enrollment in the reentry
program following his release from prison.  The revocation of Mayhew’s probation
thus may have been more appropriately termed “resentencing in light of changed
circumstances.”  Kowalski v. State, Del. Supr., No. 366, 1989, Moore J. (Nov. 30,
1989) (ORDER).  In either event, the Superior Court had authority to change
Mayhew’s probation status if he failed to comply with the condition of any terms
imposed by the court at the time of his sentencing.  In view of his failure to report
to the Plummer Center or his Probation Officer and his arrest on new charges, it is
obvious that Mayhew was not in compliance with the conditions of his release from
incarceration to probationary status. 
(3)
With respect to Mayhew’s claim that the evidence at his probationary
hearing was based on hearsay, we note that no such claim was made before the
Superior Court and will not be considered on review in the absence of plain error.
We find no basis for the application of the plain error standard in this case since the
Probation Officer’s report was based, in part, on direct knowledge.  In any event,
any error did not undermine the substantial rights of the defendant or affect the
3
integrity or fairness of his trial.  Wainwright v. State, Del. Supr., 504 A.2d 1096,
cert. denied, 479 U.S. 869 (1986).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby is,
AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
                  Justice