Case Title: Jackson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 609, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
REGINALD JACKSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 609, 2002 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN98-01-0943 thru  
§  -0945 and IN98-02-1830 
§  Cr. ID 9801007022 
§ 
 
Submitted:  April 8, 2003 
Decided:  May 27, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of May 2003, upon consideration of the opening brief and the 
State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Reginald Jackson, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his third motion for postconviction relief.  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground 
that it is manifest on the face of Jackson’s opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury convicted Jackson in 
1999 of attempted first degree murder, first degree robbery and two counts of 
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. This Court affirmed 
 
2
Jackson’s convictions on direct appeal.1  Jackson filed a petition for postconviction 
relief in October 2000, which the Superior Court summarily dismissed.  Jackson 
filed a second petition for postconviction relief in December 2000, which the 
Superior Court denied.  We dismissed Jackson’s untimely appeal from that ruling.  
In May 2002, Jackson filed a third petition for postconviction relief.  In his 
petition, Jackson argued, among other things, that his appellate counsel had been 
constitutionally ineffective because of a conflict of interest.  In response, Jackson’s 
former counsel submitted an affidavit to the Superior Court regarding Jackson’s 
allegations.  The Superior Court denied Jackson’s petition.  This appeal followed. 
(3) 
Having carefully considered the parties= respective positions, we find 
it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis 
of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated October 10, 2002.  The 
Superior Court did not err in concluding that Jackson’s conflict of interest claim 
was procedurally barred.  Jackson could have raised this claim in either of his first 
two postconviction petitions but failed to do so.2  We do not find consideration of 
this claim to be warranted in the interest of justice.  Accordingly, we find no abuse 
                                                 
1 Jackson v. State, 2000 WL 1508601 (Del. Sept. 13, 2000). 
2 See DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(2) (“Any ground for relief that was not asserted in a 
prior postconviction proceeding. . .is thereafter barred unless consideration of the claim is 
warranted in the interest of justice.”) 
 
3
of discretion in the Superior Court’s summary disposition of Jackson’s petition 
without holding a hearing.3   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
3 See Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 151 (Del. 1996).