Hartmann v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's finding that Hartmann violated probation and the resulting sentence. It held that Hartmann could not collaterally attack his original convictions in a VOP appeal, that the State presented sufficient competent evidence including Hartmann's admissions, and that hearsay rules are relaxed in VOP proceedings. The Court declined to consider ineffective-assistance claims raised for the first time on direct appeal and rejected Hartmann's remaining challenge to the State's conduct.