Case Title: Jackson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 542, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-04-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SAMUEL K. JACKSON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§   
No. 542, 2015 
§ 
§   
Court Below—Superior Court 
§   
of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
Cr. ID No. 13120006829A 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 9, 2016 
Decided: 
April 4, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of April 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme 
Court Rule 26(c) brief, the State’s response, and the record below, it appears to the 
Court that:   
(1) 
In February 2014, Samuel K. Jackson was indicted by information for 
one count each of Assault in the First Degree, Assault in the Second Degree, 
Burglary in the First Degree, and two counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon 
During Commission of a Felony (“PDWDCF”).  The charges arose from Jackson 
stabbing a friend.  The Superior Court granted Jackson’s motion for a mental 
health examination at the Delaware Psychiatric Center (“DPC”), but later vacated 
 
2 
the order at the request of Jackson’s counsel when the Public Defender’s Office 
decided to retain an outside expert for the examination.   
(2) 
On October 24, 2014, Jackson pled guilty, but mentally ill, to two 
counts of Assault in the Second Degree, one count of Burglary in the First Degree, 
and one count of PDWDCF.  The defense expert’s report in support of the guilty, 
but mentally ill, plea was submitted to the Superior Court.  The State entered a 
nolle prosequi on the other PDWDCF charge and agreed to seek habitual offender 
sentencing on only one of the Assault in the Second Degree charges.  The guilty 
plea also resolved violation of probation charges against Jackson in another matter.   
(3) 
On November 6, 2014, Jackson filed a pro se motion to withdraw his 
guilty plea.  Jackson sought to withdraw his plea on the grounds that he was 
hearing voices when the plea was offered, his trial counsel forced him to plead 
guilty despite his knowledge of Jackson’s mental illness, and he wanted to go to 
trial because he was innocent.  In response to the Superior Court’s request for his 
position, Jackson’s trial counsel indicated that he was aware of Jackson’s wish to 
withdraw his guilty plea and requested a hearing on Jackson’s motion.   
(4) 
The Superior Court ordered the DPC to evaluate Jackson’s 
competency to stand trial and competency at the time of his guilty plea.  The DPC 
later submitted a report to the Superior Court.  A hearing on Jackson’s motion to 
 
3 
withdraw his guilty plea was held on July 29, 2015.  In a letter order dated July 29, 
2015, the Superior Court denied the motion. 
(5) 
On September 11, 2015, the Superior Court sentenced Jackson.  
Jackson was sentenced as a habitual offender on one of the Assault in the Second 
Degree charges and was sentenced to a total of forty-one years of Level V 
incarceration, with credit for time served, suspended after twenty-five years for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  This appeal followed. 
(6) 
On October 7, 2015, Jackson’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a notice of 
appeal.  Counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 
26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Counsel 
informed Jackson of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Jackson with a 
copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. 
(7) 
Counsel also informed Jackson of his right to identify any points he 
wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Jackson has raised several issues for this 
Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the issues raised by Jackson and 
asked this Court to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(8) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 
 
4 
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.1 
(9) 
Jackson first appears to argue that he could not be prosecuted or 
convicted because the stabbing victim wanted all of the charges against Jackson to 
be dismissed.  Jackson submits a letter, dated July 24, 2015, from the stabbing 
victim in support of this claim.  In the letter, the stabbing victim asked that the 
charges be dropped because he and Jackson were longtime friends and Jackson’s 
attack was out of character.  This claim was not raised in the Superior Court so we 
review for plain error.2  “[T]he doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects 
which are apparent on the face of the record; which are basic, serious and 
fundamental in their character, and which clearly deprive an accused of a 
substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.”3 
(10) During his guilty plea colloquy with the Superior Court, Jackson 
stated that he was guilty of Assault in the Second Degree, Burglary in the First 
Degree, and PDWDCF.  In his letter, the stabbing victim asked that the charges 
against Jackson be dropped, but did not dispute that Jackson attacked him.  Jackson 
cites no authority in support of his contention that the State could not prosecute 
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 8; Small v. State, 51 A.3d 452, 456 (Del. 2012). 
3 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 
 
5 
him or that he could not plead guilty to the charges because the victim forgave him 
and asked that the charges be dropped.  There is no plain error here. 
(11) Jackson next appears to claim that he is entitled to relief because he 
suffers from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, he has been admitted to mental 
hospitals, he hears voices and was on suicide watch, and he takes multiple 
prescriptions for his mental health.  We construe this claim as a challenge to the 
Superior Court’s denial of Jackson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  This 
Court reviews the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of 
discretion.4   The defendant bears the burden of showing a fair and just reason to 
permit withdrawal of his plea.5  In evaluating whether to grant a motion to 
withdraw a guilty plea, the Superior Court must address whether: (i) there was a 
procedural defect in taking the plea; (ii) the defendant voluntarily entered the plea; 
(iii) the defendant had a basis to assert legal innocence; (iv) the defendant had 
adequate legal counsel; and (v) granting the motion would prejudice the State or 
unduly inconvenience the court.6 
(12) The letter order denying Jackson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea 
reflects that the Superior Court properly considered all five factors in denying 
Jackson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  As the Superior Court recognized, 
                                                 
4 Chavous v. State, 953 A.2d 282, 285 (Del. 2008). 
5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32(d). 
6 Scarborough v. State, 938 A.2d 644, 649 (Del. 2007). 
 
6 
Jackson’s mental health was a well-known issue throughout the case.  At Jackson’s 
guilty plea hearing, his counsel informed the Superior Court that the Public 
Defender Office’s psycho-forensic evaluator had evaluated Jackson that morning 
and believed he was competent, while noting that he did hear voices and have 
suicidal ideation.  The Superior Court reviewed the guilty plea colloquy and 
emphasized the following exchange: 
THE COURT: 
So as the pastor says, if you’ve got any headaches, 
problems, issues or complaints with your lawyer, his staff; with the 
people who have assisted him; with the psychiatrist that made these 
recommendations; with the prosecutor; with the police; with your 
family; with the judge, with anybody on Earth, if you’ve got any 
complaints, headaches or problems that get in the way of you entering 
this plea today, we’ve got to talk about it now or forget about it in the 
future.  Speak now or forever hold your peace.  Do you have any 
complaints, headaches or issues that get in the way of you entering 
this plea today? 
 
DEFENDANT: 
No. 
 
THE COURT: 
You’re asking me to accept the plea? 
 
DEFENDANT: 
Yeah. 
 
THE COURT: 
Knowing the consequences are 12 to life? 
 
DEFENDANT: 
Yes.7 
 
                                                 
7 Letter at 4, State v. Jackson, Cr. ID No. 1312006829 (Del. Super. Ct. July 29, 2015) (quoting 
October 24, 2014 transcript, which appears at A27-A28 of the Appendix to the Opening Brief 
under Rule 26(c)). 
 
7 
(13) The Superior Court also reviewed the defense expert’s opinion that 
Jackson’s auditory hallucinations did not rise to the level of an insanity defense, 
but that Jackson met the standard for a guilty, but mentally ill, and the evaluation 
of the DPC that Jackson’s mental health issues were primarily problematic 
personality traits and a history of substance abuse.  The DPC evaluation also 
opined that Jackson was competent to stand trial and was competent at the time of 
his guilty plea.  Based upon the record, including the mental health reports and 
guilty plea colloquy, the Superior Court did not err in denying Jackson’s motion to 
withdraw his guilty plea. 
(14) Jackson next argues that it was stipulated that he would receive no 
more than twelve years of Level V incarceration when he pled guilty.  This claim 
is contrary to the terms of the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form and Jackson’s 
guilty plea colloquy.  In the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form that Jackson 
signed, the total consecutive maximum penalty is listed as a minimum of twelve 
years and a maximum of life incarceration.  During the guilty plea colloquy, 
Jackson stated that he understood he could be sentenced from twelve years up to 
life imprisonment and that nobody had promised him a particular sentence.  Absent 
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, which he has not identified, Jackson 
is bound by these representations.8   
                                                 
8 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
 
8 
(15) Finally, Jackson contends that his trial counsel was ineffective.  This 
Court will not review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time 
on direct appeal.9 
(16) Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that Jackson’s 
appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We 
also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the 
record and the law and has properly determined that Jackson could not raise a 
meritorious claim in this appeal.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior  
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                                 
9 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994).