Case Title: White v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMAR A. WHITE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 81, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0210011281 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 13, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 24, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 24th day of August 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jamar A. White, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s January 26, 2007, order denying his second motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In June 2003, White pleaded guilty to two counts of Robbery in 
the First Degree, two counts of Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony, and one count of Conspiracy in the Second 
Degree.  He was sentenced to a total of twelve years of Level V 
 
2
incarceration, to be followed by probation.  White did not file a direct appeal 
of his convictions and sentences, nor did he appeal from his previous 
postconviction motion. 
 
(3) 
On this appeal White claims that: a) he was improperly charged 
in the indictments; b) his convictions of five robbery charges and five 
weapon charges constituted a double jeopardy violation; c) his counsel 
provided ineffective assistance; and d) the Superior Court erred and abused 
its discretion by denying his postconviction motion as procedurally barred. 
 
(4) 
The record reflects that White asserted his claims previously in 
his first postconviction motion.  As such, they are barred in this proceeding 
as formerly adjudicated unless reconsideration of the claims is warranted in 
the interest of justice.1  White has articulated no grounds to justify 
reconsideration of his claims.  Therefore, we conclude that the Superior 
Court’s decision denying White’s claims is correct, albeit for reasons 
different from those articulated by the Superior Court.2  
 
 
                                          
 
1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4). 
2 The Superior Court relied on Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (2) and (3) in denying White’s 
postconviction motion.  Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 
(Del. 1995) (This Court may affirm a judgment of the Superior Court on grounds 
different from those articulated by the Superior Court.) 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice