Title: Campbell v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 141, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 2, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMARR L. CAMPBELL, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 141, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9912011058 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 13, 2009 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: June 2, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 2nd day of June 2009, upon consideration of appellant’s opening 
brief and his motion for appointment of counsel, as well as the State’s 
motion to affirm and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Jamarr Campbell, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his fifth motion for postconviction relief.  The 
State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Campbell’s opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.  We agree and affirm.   
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury convicted 
Campbell in March 2001 of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and 
 
2
possession of cocaine within 300 feet of a park.  This Court affirmed on 
direct appeal.1  Thereafter, Campbell filed multiple unsuccessful petitions 
for postconviction and habeas corpus relief.  In October 2008, Campbell 
filed his fifth motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 61.  The Superior Court denied the motion.  This appeal 
followed. 
(3) 
Campbell raises four issues on appeal.  First, he contends that 
his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel.  Second, 
Campbell contends that the Superior Court erred at his trial by failing to 
instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple possession.  Third, 
Campbell argues that the State committed a Brady2 violation by failing to 
provide him with a copy of police reports.  Finally, Campbell contends that 
his convictions are based on perjured testimony. 
(4) 
We review the Superior Court's denial of a postconviction 
motion under Rule 61 for abuse of discretion.3  The Court first must consider 
the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before addressing any substantive 
issues.4  Rule 61(i)(4) bars litigation of any claim that previously was 
                                                 
1 Campbell v. State, 2002 WL 1472283 (Del. June 27, 2002). 
2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 
3Outten v. State, 720 A.2d 547, 551 (Del. 1998). 
4Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
 
3
adjudicated unless reconsideration of the claim is warranted in the interest of 
justice.  In this case, Campbell’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel 
and perjured testimony have both been raised and rejected in prior 
proceedings.  Reconsideration of these previously adjudicated claims is not 
warranted in the interest of justice. 
(5) 
Campbell’s contention that the trial judge erred in failing to 
instruct the jury on the lesser included charge of simple possession has no 
merit because neither the prosecution nor the defense requested such an 
instruction.  In the absence of such a request, the trial judge had no authority 
to provide such an instruction sua sponte.5  Accordingly, we reject this 
argument. 
(6) 
Campbell’s final argument is that the State committed a Brady6 
violation because it failed to provide him with any information identifying 
the woman with whom Campbell was seen when police arrested him.  This 
argument, however, is contradicted by the record because the police report 
containing the information was provided by the State to defense counsel 
prior to the trial.  Accordingly, we find no merit to this claim.  
                                                 
5 Wiggins v. State, 902 A.2d 1110, 1112-13 (Del. 2006). 
6 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  Campbell’s motion for the appointment of 
counsel is DENIED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice