Title: Brown v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 130, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 19, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARQUIS BROWN, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 130, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID. 9901004659 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 31, 2005 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 19, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of July 2005, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant Marquis Brown filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief.  
The State has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Brown’s opening brief that his 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Brown pled guilty to several drug-
related charges in December 1999 and was sentenced immediately.  
Thereafter, he was found guilty several times of violating the terms and 
 
2
conditions of his probation.  In March 2005, he filed a motion for 
postconviction relief.  Brown alleged that the Superior Court lacked 
jurisdiction over him because he is “protected by International Laws and 
Treaties…as a Nuwaupian Moor.” Brown contended that he is a member of 
the “United Nuwaupian Nation of Moors of the Yamassee Tribe of Native 
Americans,” which he alleged to be a sovereign nation located in Georgia.  
He argued in his motion that he is entitled under several treaties dating back 
to the 1700s to be released from custody and returned to his homeland in 
Georgia.  The Superior Court denied Brown’s motion for postconviction 
relief as factually and legally frivolous. 
(3) 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief and 
the State’s motion to affirm, we find it manifest that the judgment of the 
Superior Court should be affirmed.  Brown pled guilty and was sentenced on 
December 28, 1999.  He did not appeal; therefore, his convictions became 
final thirty days after his sentencing.1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1) 
provides, with certain exceptions not applicable to this case, that a motion 
for postconviction relief must be filed within three years after the judgment 
of conviction becomes final.  Although Rule 61(i)(5) permits the trial court 
to review an untimely claim challenging the court’s jurisdiction, the burden 
                                                 
1 See Jackson v. State, 654 A.2d 829, 830 (Del. 1995). 
 
3
is still on the defendant to prove the court’s lack of jurisdiction.2  In this 
case, Brown offered no evidence to support his claim of membership in a 
federally recognized tribe.  Even if he had, such membership would not have 
deprived the Superior Court of jurisdiction over the criminal proceedings 
against him for crimes he committed in Delaware.3 Accordingly, we find no 
error in the Superior Court’s conclusion that Brown’s motion was both 
factually and legally frivolous.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
2 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 555 (Del. 1990). 
3 See Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 362 (2001).