Opinion ID: 2446852
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Uncharged Misconduct Claim

Text: 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 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.