Title: Campbell v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 91, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 18, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
JAMAR L. CAMPBELL,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 91, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. Nos. IN99-12-1779; 1780  
                      
 
Submitted: April 29, 2004  
   Decided: June  18, 2004    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 18th day of June 2004, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jamar L. Campbell, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s February 10, 2004 order denying his motion to correct sentence 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  The State of Delaware has moved 
to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the 
 
 
-2-
face of Campbell’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and 
AFFIRM.   
 
(2) 
In March 2001, Campbell was found guilty by a Superior Court jury 
of Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Deliver and Possession of Cocaine Within 
300 Feet of a Park.  Because this was Campbell’s second conviction of Possession 
with Intent to Deliver, he was sentenced to a mandatory term of 15 years 
incarceration at Level V.2  Campbell’s convictions and sentences were affirmed by 
this Court on direct appeal.3 
 
(3) 
In his appeal, Campbell claims that his enhanced sentence was illegal 
because the prosecution did not provide proof at a hearing that he was a non-
addict, as was required under Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4751(d).   
 
(4) 
The Delaware criminal statutes provide two alternative sentencing 
schemes for defendants convicted for the second time of Possession With Intent to 
Deliver.4  Under Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4751(d), the prosecutor may attempt to 
demonstrate that the defendant is a non-addict and, if successful, the defendant is 
subject to a minimum mandatory sentence of 12 years Level V incarceration.  In 
the alternative, under Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4763(a), the prosecutor may forego 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4763(a) (2003). 
3 Campbell v. State, Del. Supr., No. 388, 2001, Walsh, J. (June 27, 2002). 
4 Twyman v. State, Del. Supr., No. 68, 1997, Hartnett, J. (Nov. 12, 1997). 
 
 
-3-
proof that the defendant is a non-addict and simply demonstrate that he has been 
convicted of the offense for the second time.  Under that statute, the defendant is 
subject to a minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years Level V incarceration.5   
 
(5) 
In this case, Campbell was convicted under Section 4763(a), which 
does not require proof that the defendant is a non-addict.  Because the prosecutor 
was not required under the statute to prove that Campbell was a non-addict, 
Campbell’s claim must fail. 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Campbell’s opening brief that this appeal 
is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled 
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment 
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
 
 
                                                 
5 Id. 
 
 
-4-