Case Title: Jackson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 335, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-12-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CARLOS D. JACKSON,  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 335, 2002 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below--Superior Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in  
v. 
§ 
and for Sussex County in Cr.   
§ 
ID No. 0107004921. 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 1, 2002 
Decided: 
December 2, 2002 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 2nd day of December 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
brief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to 
withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In September 2001, Carlos D. Jackson was indicted by a Sussex 
County grand jury on fourteen charges, including Rape in the Second 
Degree, two counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a 
Felony, and Kidnapping in the First Degree.  The charges arose from an 
incident in which Jackson gave another man, Michael Burross, $2,000 to 
buy three pounds of marijuana from a friend of Jackson’s.  Burross returned 
to Jackson’s residence later that night without the money or the marijuana 
 
2
and told Jackson that he had been swindled.  Burross testified that Jackson 
invited him in to “figure [it] out” while Jackson called the other people who 
had contributed money to the $2,000 marijuana fund.  According to Burross, 
once he was inside Jackson’s residence, Jackson bound him with duct tape 
and held him captive through the night.   
(2) 
During the course of the night, Jackson, and others who had 
arrived at Jackson’s house after Jackson’s telephone calls, terrorized 
Burross.  At one point, Burross testified, Jackson sexually assaulted him 
with a broomstick. 
 
(3) 
Following a jury trial, Jackson was convicted of Rape in the 
Second Degree, two counts of Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony, Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree (a 
lesser-included offense of Kidnapping in the First Degree), Assault in the 
Second Degree, and other crimes.  After a presentence investigation, Jackson 
was sentenced to fifty-four years at Level V, suspended after serving twenty-
eight years, for six months at Level IV Work Release, followed by twenty-
five years and six months of probation.  This is Jackson’s direct appeal. 
(4) 
Jackson’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Jackson’s counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
 
3
appealable issues.  Jackson’s attorney informed him of the provisions of 
Rule 26(c) and provided Jackson with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief and appendix.  Jackson also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney’s presentation. 
(5) 
In a writing submitted through his counsel, Jackson has raised 
several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.  Jackson complains that 
his counsel failed to communicate with him about the case, to conduct an 
adequate investigation, and to contact witnesses.  The State has responded to 
the position taken by Jackson’s counsel, as well as to Jackson’s claims, and 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s decision. 
(6) 
The standard and scope of review applicable to the 
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under 
Rule 26(c) is twofold.  First, this Court must be satisfied that defense 
counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for 
arguable claims.1  Second, this Court must conduct its own review of the 
record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least 
arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary 
presentation.2 
                                          
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
2 Id. 
 
4
(7) 
This Court will not consider claims of ineffective assistance of 
counsel that are raised for the first time on appeal.3  In this case, Jackson did 
not raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the Superior Court.  
Accordingly, we will not consider the claims in this appeal.  Jackson, 
however, may raise his ineffective assistance of counsel clams in a motion 
for postconviction relief that is filed in the Superior Court.4 
(8) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Jackson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Jackson’s counsel made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly 
determined that Jackson could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
/s/Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
                                          
 
3 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 
4 Super. Cr. Crim. R. 61.