Title: Jackson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 245, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 15, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GEORGE A. JACKSON, 
 
 
Defendant-Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff-Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 245, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 91S03837DI 
§ 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 23, 2014 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 15, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of July 2014, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
The appellant, George Jackson, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence.  The State has filed a 
motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of Jackson’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.  
(2) 
A Superior Court jury convicted Jackson in April 1992 of one count 
each of Attempted Murder in the First Degree, Robbery in the First Degree, and 
Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  The Superior Court sentenced Jackson to a total 
 
2
period of forty-two years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving 
thirty-five years in prison followed by decreasing levels of supervision.  Following 
a remand, this Court affirmed Jackson’s convictions and sentences on direct 
appeal.1  Since that time, Jackson has filed numerous unsuccessful motions for 
postconviction relief and for correction or modification of his sentences.2  Jackson 
filed his latest motion for correction of illegal sentence under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 35(a), alleging that his separate sentences for Attempted Murder in 
the First Degree and Robbery in the First Degree violate double jeopardy 
principles and should be merged because the criminal conduct that established the 
attempted murder charge was not separate and distinct from the conduct 
establishing the robbery charge.  The Superior Court denied his motion.  This 
appeal followed. 
(3) 
On appeal, Jackson again alleges that his sentences for robbery and 
attempted murder are illegal because they violate double jeopardy principles.  
Jackson previously raised this same issue in a motion for correction of sentence 
that he filed in 2011.  On appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his 2011 
                                                 
1 Jackson v. State, 1994 WL 397558 (Del. June 30, 1994). 
2 See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 2012 WL 4471140 (Del. Sept. 27, 2012) (denying Jackson’s fifth 
motion for postconviction relief). 
 
3
motion, this Court rejected Jackson’s double jeopardy claim on its merits.3  That 
ruling is the law of the case, and we find no basis to reconsider that ruling in the 
interest of justice.4 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
3 Jackson v. State, 2011 WL 5027772, *2 (Del. Oct. 21, 2011) (finding no double jeopardy 
violation because attempted first degree murder and first degree robbery each require proof of an 
element that the other does not). 
4 See Gannett Co. v. Kanaga, 750 A.2d 1174, 1181 (Del. 2000) (holding that the law of the case 
doctrine requires that there must be some closure to matters already decided in a given case by 
the highest court of a particular jurisdiction).