Case Title: White v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 409, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMAR A. WHITE,  
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 409, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 04M-05-067 
§  Cr. ID No. 0210011281 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: January 26, 2007 
Decided: February 28, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 28th day of February 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 July 11, 2006 order denying his motion to reopen a 
forfeiture case pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b).  We find no 
merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In November 2002, White was indicted on approximately 30 
robbery and weapon charges.  His vehicle, a 1998 Ford Contour, was seized 
 
2
by the police pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2322.1  On April 2, 2003, 
the State filed a motion for forfeiture of White’s vehicle pursuant to Del. 
Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 2324 and 2325.  White does not dispute that he 
received notice of the motion.  On April 7, 2003, the Superior Court granted 
the State’s motion and the car was forfeited to the State.  White did not 
appeal the Superior Court’s order.  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.   
 
(3) 
In May 2004, White filed a petition in the Superior Court for 
return of his 1998 Ford Contour.  The Superior Court denied the petition as 
moot because the car already had been forfeited to the State.  White did not 
appeal the Superior Court’s order.  Rather, in June 2006, White filed a 
motion to reopen the Superior Court’s April 7, 2003 judgment, which the 
Superior Court denied by order dated July 11, 2006.   
 
(4) 
In his appeal, White claims that the Superior Court did not have 
the authority to order forfeiture of his car because the State failed to follow 
the proper procedures when it filed its motion for forfeiture and that, 
therefore, the Superior Court should have granted his motion to reopen the 
                                                 
1 That statute provides for the seizure of any vehicle that has been used “in, or in 
connection with, the commission of any felony.” 
 
3
judgment.  The essence of White’s claim is that he should be excused for 
failing to file a timely appeal of the Superior Court’s April 7, 2003 order 
because the State failed to follow the proper forfeiture procedures in the first 
instance.  
 
(5) 
Under Rule 60(b), the Superior Court has discretion to relieve a 
party from a final judgment upon a showing of a) mistake, inadvertence, 
surprise or excusable neglect; b) newly-discovered evidence; c) fraud; d) a 
void judgment; e) satisfaction of the judgment; or f) “extraordinary 
circumstances” justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.2  White 
has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) on any 
of those grounds.  Moreover, under Delaware law, White is prohibited from 
using a Rule 60(b) motion as a substitute for a timely-filed appeal.3  
Accordingly, the Superior Court did not err or abuse its discretion when it 
denied White’s Rule 60(b) motion.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
                                                 
2 Dixon v. Delaware Olds, Inc., 405 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1979). 
3 State v. Skinner, 632 A.2d 82, 84 (Del. 1993).