Title: Campbell v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 502, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 19, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMAR L. CAMPBELL, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 502, 2002 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN99-12-1779 and 
§  -1780 
§  Cr. ID 9912011058 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 8, 2002 
  Decided: December 19, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of December 2002, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jamar Campbell, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for a new trial.  In March 2001, a Superior 
Court jury convicted Campbell of one count of possession with intent to deliver 
cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine within 300 of a park.  The Superior 
Court sentenced Campbell in August 2001 to a total period of eighteen years 
incarceration to be suspended after serving fifteen years for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  Campbell’s counsel filed a direct appeal on Campbell’s behalf.  On 
May 28, 2002, Campbell filed a pro se motion for new trial.  The Superior Court 
 
 
-2-
deferred action on the motion until this Court issued its mandate and returned the 
Superior Court record following Campbell’s direct appeal.  On July 15, 2002, the 
Clerk of this Court issued the mandate following our affirmance of Campbell’s 
convictions and sentences on direct appeal.1  On August 13, 2002, the Superior 
Court denied Campbell’s motion for a new trial.  This appeal followed. 
(2) 
On appeal, Campbell asserts that the Superior Court erred in denying 
his motion for a new trial without addressing the substance of his claims.  
Campbell asserted in his motion that a new trial was warranted because the 
Superior Court had improperly admitted certain evidence and because the Superior 
Court had given an erroneous jury instruction.  A motion for a new trial, however, 
must be filed within seven days after the verdict unless it is based on a claim of 
newly-discovered evidence, which Campbell’s motion was not.2   In this case, 
Campbell’s motion was not filed until more than a year after the jury’s verdict and 
almost ten months from the Superior Court’s sentencing.  Accordingly, we find no 
error in the Superior Court’s decision denying Campbell’s motion for a new trial. 
                                                 
1 Campbell v. State, Del. Supr., No. 388, 2001, Walsh, J. (June 27, 2002). 
2 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 33. 
 
 
-3-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
_/s/ Myron T. Steele____________ 
Justice