Title: Jackson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 124, 2007, 90, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 2, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JACKIE JACKSON, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Nos. 90 and 124, 2007  
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
C O N S O L I D A T E D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
for Sussex County  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Def. ID No. 0107021899 
 
Appellee.   
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 30, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 2, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 2nd day of August 2007, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening briefs and the appellee’s motions to affirm, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
On February 20, 2007, the appellant, Jackie Jackson, filed an 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order of January 18, 2007 that denied his 
motion for correction of sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
35(a) (“Rule 35(a)”).   On March 8, 2007, Jackson filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order of February 13, 2007 that denied his motion for relief 
from judgment pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b) (“Rule 60(b)”).  
Jackson’s Rule 60(b) motion sought relief from the Superior Court’s January 
 
2
18, 2007 denial of his motion for correction of sentence.  In the interest of 
judicial economy, the Court has consolidated Jackson’s appeals for decision. 
 
(2) 
In 2002 Jackson was convicted and sentenced to thirteen years 
of incarceration followed by probation.1  In his Rule 35(a) motion for 
correction of sentence, Jackson sought to set aside his conviction and 
sentence on the basis of alleged errors in the jury instructions.  The Superior 
Court denied the motion on the basis that Jackson’s claims could not be 
considered under Rule 35(a) and must be raised in a motion for 
postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 
 
(3) 
Jackson’s Rule 60(b) motion sought to set aside the Superior 
Court’s denial of his Rule 35(a) motion for correction of sentence.  The 
Superior Court summarily denied Jackson’s motion on the basis that relief 
under civil Rule 60(b) was not applicable in a criminal proceeding. 
 
(4) 
The Superior Court correctly determined that neither Rule 35(a) 
nor Rule 60(b) could be used to collaterally attack a criminal conviction.2  
                                                 
1 In prior proceedings, this Court affirmed Jackson’s conviction and the denials of 
Jackson’s first and second motions for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 61.  See Jackson v. State, 2003 WL 161250 (Del. Supr.) (affirming 
conviction on direct appeal); Jackson v. State, 2005 WL 528673 (Del. Supr.) (affirming 
denial of first postconviction motion); Jackson v. State, 2005 WL 3031601 (Del. Supr.) 
(affirming denial of second postconviction motion).  
2 See Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998) (providing that the function of 
Rule 35 is to permit correction of illegal sentence, not to reexamine errors occurring at 
trial); Allen v. State, 2004 WL 120527 (Del. Supr.) (holding, as a substantive matter, that 
 
3
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 provides the exclusive remedy for setting 
aside a final judgment of conviction.3 
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of Jackson’s opening briefs that these 
appeals are without merit.  The issues presented in the appeals are controlled 
by settled Delaware law. To the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, sua sponte, that appeal Nos. 
90, 2007 and 124, 2007 are CONSOLIDATED for decision.  IT IS 
FURTHER ORDERED that the State’s motions to affirm are granted, and 
the judgments of the Superior Court dated January 18, 2007 and February 
13, 2007 are AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
                 
 
Justice  
                                                                                                                                                 
Superior Court’s decision not to reopen judgment in criminal case pursuant to civil Rule 
60(b) was proper).   
3 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(2) (2007); Heron v. State, 2001 WL 58742 (Del. Supr.).  
Cf. Boatswain v. State, 2007 WL 2051617 (Del. Supr.) (providing that writ of habeas 
corpus is not a substitute for postconviction remedy under Rule 61).