IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSEPH C. JACKSON,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§

§ 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).