Trottman v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TERRENCE M. TROTTMAN, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 78, 2024
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1603008934 (K)
§
Appellee. §

Submitted: September 6, 2024
Decided: October 31, 2024

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears

to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Terrance M. Trottman, filed this appeal from a Superior

Court order sentencing him for a violation of probation (“VOP”). For the reasons

set forth below, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

(2) In February 2017, Trottman pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm

by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”) and possession of a firearm during the

commission of a felony (“PFDCF”). The Superior Court sentenced Trottman as

follows: (i) for PFBPP, effective March 11, 2016, four years of Level V
incarceration; and (ii) for PFDCF, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended

after three years for one year of Level III probation.

(3) On February 10, 2023, an administrative warrant was filed for

Trottman’s violation of conditional release and VOP. The report alleged that

Trottman was discovered committing new crimes during a traffic stop (weapon and

drug offenses), possessed a gun without written approval of his probation officer,

failed to report a change in his address, and failed to abide by his curfew. In the new

criminal case,1 Trottman filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the

traffic stop, which the Superior Court granted. The State subsequently filed a nolle

prosequi for the charges in Cr. ID No. 2302004798.

(4) At a December 12, 2023 office conference in this case, the Superior

Court judge questioned the State’s intent not to proceed with the violation of

conditional release and VOP based on the granting of the motion to suppress in Cr.

ID No. 2302004798.2 The judge noted the existence of caselaw holding that the

exclusionary rule does not apply in VOP proceedings. The judge directed the State

to submit its position regarding the use of the suppressed evidence in the VOP

1
We take judicial notice of the docket in Cr. ID No. 2304004798.
2
During the office conference, the judge referred to an undocketed email from the prosecutor in
which the prosecutor apparently stated that the State did not intend to proceed with the violation
of conditional release/VOP hearing and referred to State v. Machin. In Machin, the Superior Court
discussed the doctrine of collateral estoppel in declining to dismiss a State indictment based on the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s granting of a motion to suppress in the
defendant’s federal criminal case because the Assistant United States Attorney had failed to appear
for the suppression hearing. 642 A.2d 1235, 1238-42 (Del. Super. Ct. 1993).
2
proceeding and Trottman’s counsel to file a response to the State’s position. On

December 19, 2023, the State advised that it had determined the exclusionary rule

did not apply to VOP proceedings and intended to offer the suppressed evidence if

the matter proceeded to a contested hearing. Trottman’s counsel requested a

contested hearing.

(5) At the VOP hearing, the State pursued the allegations that Trottman had

violated his conditions of supervision by committing a new criminal offense and

possessing a firearm without written approval, but did not pursue the allegations that

Trottman had failed to report a change in address or abide by his curfew. Trottman’s

probation officer testified that Trottman had signed paperwork in which he agreed

not to commit new crimes or possess a gun without the written approval of his

probation officer while on probation.

(6) Detective Brian Hall and Detective Andrew Valeski of the Delaware

State Police testified about the traffic stop of Trottman for failing to wear a seatbelt.

Trottman, who was by himself in the car, told Hall that he was driving a rental car

obtained by his girlfriend, but that he did not have the rental paperwork. Hall

obtained Trottman’s license for Valeski to check whether Trottman was wanted or

had a criminal history. According to Hall, he directed Trottman to step out of the

car because Valeski indicated that Trottman had a criminal history, the stop occurred

in a high-crime area, and Trottman appeared nervous. Hall further testified that he

3
conducted a consensual pat-down search of Trottman and found an electronic digital

scale in Trottman’s right leg pants pocket. A K-9 unit did an open-air sniff of

Trottman’s car and signaled the presence of drugs. In searching the car, Detective

Valeski found a loaded gun concealed between the driver’s seat and center console.

(7) The parties stipulated that the gun was purchased by a different person

in 2021. Trottman argued that there was insufficient evidence to show that he was

aware of or possessed the gun. The Superior Court concluded that the State had

shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Trottman had violated the conditions

of his supervision by knowingly possessing a gun as a person prohibited and without

the written approval of his probation officer. As to the PFDCF conviction, the

Superior Court revoked Trottman’s conditional release and noted that he had served

that sentence because the maximum release date was March 9, 2023. For the PFBPP

conviction, the Superior Court sentenced Trottman, effective March 9, 2023, to five

years of Level V incarceration, suspended after three years for decreasing levels of

supervision. This appeal followed.

(8) Trottman argues that his VOP sentence is illegal under Superior Court

Criminal Rule 35(a) because it is based on new criminal charges that were dropped

after the Superior Court granted his motion to suppress evidence seized during

unlawful searches of his person and car. Although couched as a claim of illegal

sentence, Trottman is actually challenging the finding of a VOP based on evidence

4
that was suppressed and new criminal charges that were dismissed in Cr. ID No.

2302004798. Trottman did not raise these claims in the VOP proceeding so we

review for plain error.3 Plain error “is 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.”4

(9) The exclusionary rule “precludes the introduction of evidence at trial

obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal

searches and seizures, including evidence derivatively acquired as a result of the

unconstitutional search or seizure.”5 Like many jurisdictions, this Court has held

that “the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings under

Amendments IV and XIV of the Federal Constitution.”6 The Superior Court did not

3
Supr. Ct. R. 8.
4
Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986).
5
Garnett v. State, 308 A.3d 625, 642 (Del. 2023).
6
Thompson v. State, 192 A.3d 544, 552 (Del. 2018) (noting that nine United States Circuit of
Appeals have held that the exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation proceedings).
See also Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364 (1998) (holding that the
exclusionary rule does not apply to parole revocation proceedings); Walker v. State, 205 A.3d 823,
825-26 (Del. 2019) (rejecting probationer’s argument that evidence seized during an
administrative search should have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment, but recognizing
that suppression is appropriate in a VOP proceeding when an administrative search does not
comply with 11 Del. C. § 4321(c)); State v. Thackston, 716 S.E.2d 517, 518-20 (Ga. 2011) (holding
that the intermediate appellate court erred in finding that the State could not relitigate a suppression
issue in a probation revocation proceeding based on collateral estoppel because the exclusionary
rule does not apply to such proceedings); State v. Caron, 334 A.2d 495, 499 (Me. 1975) (affirming
the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence in a probation revocation proceeding that
had been suppressed under the exclusionary rule in a separate criminal case).
5
therefore commit plain error in relying upon evidence suppressed in Cr. ID No.

2302004798 to find that Trottman had violated his probation by knowingly

possessing a gun. Similarly, the dismissal of the charges in Cr. ID No. 2302004798

did not preclude the Superior Court from finding that Trottman had violated his

probation by possessing a firearm.7

(10) Finally, Trottman’s VOP sentence is not illegal. A sentence is illegal

if it exceeds statutory limits, violates the Double Jeopardy Clause, is ambiguous with

respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory,

omits a term required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to its substance, or is

a sentence that the judgment of conviction did not authorize.8 Once Trottman

committed a VOP, the Superior Court could impose any period of incarceration up

to and including the balance of the Level V time remaining on his sentence. 9 The

Level V time imposed for Trottman’s VOP—five years suspended after three

years—did not exceed the Level V time remaining on his sentence.

7
See Thompson v. State, 2018 WL 3359557, at *1 (Del. July 9, 2018) (“Because proof of a VOP
is less than the ‘reasonable doubt’ standard of a criminal trial, we have held that Superior Court
has the authority to revoke a defendant’s probation for incurring new criminal charges
notwithstanding the later dismissal of those charges.”); Gibbs v. State, 760 A.2d 541, 544 (Del.
2000) (“The Superior Court also has authority to revoke Gibbs’ probation notwithstanding his
acquittal of criminal charges involving the same conduct that gave rise to the violation of probation
hearing.”).
8
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
9
11 Del. C. § 4334(c); Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005).
6
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice

7