Title: Jackson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 71, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 31, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTHONY JACKSON,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 71, 2016 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  
  
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0107013109 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Submitted: August 17, 2016 
Decided:     August 31, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
This 31st day of August 2016, upon consideration the briefs and the record 
on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Anthony Jackson served a prison sentence for robberies committed in 
New York State.  After completing his sentence in New York, Jackson should have 
been returned to Delaware to serve a consecutive sentence from a guilty plea for 
robberies committed in Delaware.  As a result of an apparent mistake by New York 
authorities, Jackson was released from prison without sending him back to 
Delaware to serve his sentence.  For almost a year while he was at liberty, Jackson 
claims he met the conditions of his parole, secured job training, and earned a 
2 
 
salary.  Someone eventually discovered the mistake, and Jackson was returned to 
Delaware to start serving his sentence. 
(2) 
Jackson filed several motions with the Superior Court seeking credit 
against his Delaware sentence for his time at liberty following his release by New 
York authorities.  In a January 13, 2016 order the Superior Court denied Jackson’s 
motion for correction or reduction of sentence.  On appeal Jackson claims that, 
under the common law doctrine of credit for time spent erroneously at liberty, the 
Superior Court should have credited his sentence with the time spent at liberty after 
being paroled by New York authorities before re-incarceration in Delaware.   
(3) 
Credit for time spent erroneously at liberty might, under the right 
circumstances, be awarded to an inmate.  But those circumstances are not present 
here.  Even though he was subject to a detainer, New York correctional officials 
mistakenly released Jackson apparently without notifying Delaware correctional 
officials.  Absent some evidence of negligence by Delaware correctional officials, 
Jackson must serve the full sentence meted out by the Superior Court.  We 
therefore affirm. 
(4) 
While Anthony Jackson was serving a fourteen year sentence in New 
York State for a 2001 robbery offense, the State of Delaware indicted Jackson in 
November 2001 for nine separate Delaware bank robberies.  Using the Interstate 
Agreement on Detainers, the State brought Jackson to Delaware to face the 
3 
 
Delaware robbery charges.  In February 2007, Jackson pled guilty to the Delaware 
charges of Robbery First Degree, Robbery Second Degree (as a lesser included 
offense), and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony.  The 
Superior Court sentenced Jackson to an aggregate of ten years unsuspended Level 
V incarceration, followed by decreasing levels of supervision, to run consecutive 
with his New York sentence. 
(5) 
After his sentencing, Delaware returned Jackson to the custody of 
New York State to finish serving his New York sentence.  The New York State 
authorities then paroled Jackson in July 2014 without returning him to Delaware to 
start serving his consecutive Delaware sentence.  Jackson states that after his 
release from prison in New York, he remained under New York Board of Parole 
supervision, reported weekly to his probation officer where he was drug-screened 
each week, and successfully completed a six-month out-patient drug program.  
Jackson also claims to have completed a three-month anger management program 
and to have gone through job training and to have found a means to support 
himself.   
(6) 
Jackson’s time at liberty ran out when his New York State probation 
officer notified Jackson that he was wanted in Delaware.  The record is unclear 
how the New York authorities learned that Jackson was wanted in Delaware.   
According to the State, Jackson was taken back into Delaware custody on June 18, 
4 
 
2015.  Jackson has appealed the Superior Court’s January 13, 2016 order denying 
his motion for correction or reduction of sentence.  This Court reviews the 
Superior Court’s denial of a motion under Rule 35 for abuse of discretion and 
reviews questions of law de novo.1 
(7) 
  Jackson relies on a doctrine known as credit for time spent 
erroneously at liberty.  There is considerable disagreement about whether and how 
to apply this doctrine.2  We have never directly addressed the issue in Delaware,3 
and do not see the need to do so on the limited briefing and record before us.  
When the doctrine applies, and before an inmate is awarded credit, the 
incarcerating authority—in this case Delaware—must be negligent in carrying out 
                                          
 
1 Benge v. State, 101 A.3d 973, 977 (Del. 2014); Hamilton v. State, 285 A.2d 807, 808 (Del. 
1971); Fountain v. State, 100 A.3d 1021 (Del. 2014) (Table) (“We review the Superior Court’s 
denial of a motion for correction of sentence under Rule 35[] for abuse of discretion, although 
questions of law are reviewed de novo.”). 
2 See Gabriel J. Chin, Getting Out of Jail Free: Sentence Credit for Periods of Mistaken Liberty, 
45 Cath. U. L. Rev. 403 (1996); Danielle E. Wall, A Game of Cat and Mouse—Or Government 
and Prisoner: Granting Relief to an Erroneously Released Prisoner in Vega v. United States, 53 
Vill. L. Rev. 385 (2008); Andrew T. Winkler, Implicit in the Concept of Erroneous Liberty: The 
Need to Ensure Proper Sentence Credit in the Fourth Circuit, 35 N.C. Cent. L. Rev. 1 (2012); 
Jay M. Zitter, Annotation, Effect of Delay in Taking Defendant into Custody After Conviction 
and Sentence, 76 A.L.R. 5th 485 (2000). 
3 In Harley v. State, where an inmate was erroneously at liberty, we stated that the inmate “was 
given credit against the remaining term for the approximately three years he was erroneously 
released” and “we find no fundamental unfairness or injustice in requiring him to serve the 
balance of his original sentence less credit for his time out of the system.” 527 A.2d 281 (Table), 
1987 WL 37561, at *1.   In Guy v. State, the facts of the erroneous release were similar to those 
in the case before us, except the defendant spent nearly three years at liberty.  We denied credit 
for the time spent erroneously at liberty under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.  911 A.2d 
803 (Table), 2006 WL 2986996 (Del. 2006).  Neither case addresses the doctrine. 
5 
 
the inmate’s sentence.4  Here, Delaware correctional officials were not involved in 
his release.  New York correctional officials had custody of Jackson, and released 
him even though a detainer had been filed for his return to Delaware after finishing 
his New York sentence.   
(8) 
Jackson claims that Delaware officials were notified of his release 
from custody in New York State.  But the document on which he relies to show 
notice appears to be a Delaware Department of Correction status sheet, which does 
not provide any support for the claim.5  Without any evidence raising the 
possibility of negligence by Delaware correctional officials, we find Jackson’s 
argument on appeal to be without merit. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Justice 
                                          
 
4 Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310, 320 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[n]early every court to have 
considered the rule of credit for time at liberty has required that the government’s actions in 
releasing or failing to incarcerate the prisoner be negligent.”). 
5 App. to Answering Br. at 38–39.