Title: Joseph C. Jackson v. State of Delaware

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSEPH C. JACKSON, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 638, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 0708009517 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 14, 2015 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 23, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of July 2015, upon consideration of appellant’s opening 
brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Joseph Jackson, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence.  The State 
has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Jackson’s opening brief that his appeal is without 
merit.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Thus, we affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment. 
 (2) 
The record reflects that, during the course of several months in 
2007, undercover officers purchased drugs from Jackson at his home in 
 
2 
Clayton on multiple occasions.  As a result of that investigation, Jackson was 
arrested and indicted in August 2007 in Cr. ID 0708009517 on nine charges, 
including three counts of Delivery of Cocaine.  The deliveries were alleged to 
have occurred on June 8, 2007, June 21, 2007, and July 18, 2007.  When 
police went to Jackson’s home to arrest him on August 7, 2007, he was found 
in possession of other narcotics and paraphernalia, which led to another 
indictment in October 2007 on additional charges in Cr. ID 0708009454.   
(3) 
Jackson pled guilty in December 2008 in Cr. ID 0708009517 to 
two counts of Delivery of Cocaine.  The plea agreement reflected that Jackson 
agreed to be sentenced immediately as a habitual offender.  The State 
recommended a total sentence of twenty-seven years at Level V to be 
suspended after serving twelve years in prison for one year at Level III 
probation, which the Superior Court imposed.  Jackson did not appeal.  
Instead, he filed unsuccessful motions for correction of sentence and 
postconviction relief.   
(4) 
In April 2014, Jackson filed another motion for correction of 
sentence, alleging that, under this Court’s decision in Blake v. State,1 his 
convictions and sentences in Cr. ID 0708009517 should have merged with the 
convictions and sentences in Cr. ID 0708009454 because all of the charges 
                                                 
1 Blake v. State, 65 A.3d 557 (Del. 2013). 
 
3 
resulted from the same on-going transaction.  He alleged that his sentences for 
Delivery violated double jeopardy.  The Superior Court denied his motion.  
This appeal followed. 
(5) 
Jackson raises two issues in his opening brief on appeal.  First, 
he contends that the Superior Court erred in treating his motion for correction 
of sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) as a motion for 
modification of sentence under Rule 35(b).  Second, he argues that the 
Superior Court erred in denying his motion because his sentences violate 
double jeopardy principles.   
(6) 
We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for correction 
of sentence under Rule 35(a) for abuse of discretion, although questions of 
law are reviewed de novo.2  Under Rule 35(a), a sentence is illegal if it 
exceeds statutory limits, violates double jeopardy, is ambiguous with respect 
to the time and manner in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, 
omits a term required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to the 
substance of the sentence, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction did 
not authorize.3 
                                                 
2 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 
3 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
 
4 
(7) 
As to Jackson’s first claim, it appears that the Superior Court 
mistakenly treated Jackson’s motion as a motion for modification of sentence 
under Rule 35(b), rather than a motion for correction of sentence under Rule 
35(a).  Although the Superior Court erred in holding that Jackson’s motion 
was time-barred, we nonetheless affirm the Superior Court’s denial of 
Jackson’s motion on the independent and alternative ground that it lacked 
merit under Rule 35(a).4 
(8) 
Jackson’s reliance upon this Court’s decision in Blake v. State to 
support his argument that his convictions and sentences violate double 
jeopardy is misplaced.  In Blake v. State, a jury found Blake guilty of 
Possession of Cocaine and Possession of Heroin but was hung on a charge of 
Trafficking in Cocaine.5  After the verdict was entered, the State reindicted 
Blake on Trafficking in Cocaine and Trafficking in Heroin for the same 
conduct that was at issue in his earlier trial.  We concluded that the State’s 
reindictment subjected Blake to double jeopardy.6 
(9) 
The facts of Blake v. State are distinguishable from Jackson’s 
case.  Jackson was indicted in August 2007 in Cr. ID 0708009517 for three 
                                                 
4 Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that the 
Delaware Supreme Court may affirm a trial court’s judgment for reasons different than 
those articulated by the trial court). 
5 Blake v. State, 65 A.3d at 560. 
6 Id. at 564. 
 
5 
separate drug transactions occurring on three different dates.  The October 
2007 indictment in Cr. ID 0708009454 arose from criminal conduct that 
occurred when officers went to Jackson’s home to arrest him on August 7, 
2007.  The conduct alleged in the two indictments constituted separate and 
distinct criminal offenses.7  Neither his convictions nor his sentences violate 
double jeopardy principles.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s 
denial of his motion for correction of sentence. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
7 Tilghman v. State, 2002 WL 31107054, *1 (Del. Sept. 19, 2002).