State of Delaware v. Jackson.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF DELAWA RE T. Henl ey Graves Resident Judge SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHOUSE ONE THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 1 9947 (302) 856-5257 October 25, 2004 N440 George A. Jackson Sussex Correctional Institution P. O. Box 500 Georgetown, DE 19947 RE: Defendant ID No. 91S03837DI Dear Mr. Jackson: The Court is in receipt of your Motion for Postconviction Relief. It is denied as it is procedurally barred. As you noted in your petition, you were convicted on April 19, 1992 and sentenced on July 16, 1992 on the charges of attempted murder in the 1st degree, robbery in the 1st degree and conspiracy. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court remanded your case to Superior Court for the Court to consider the Rule 61 ineffective assistance of counsel claims so that all issues could be bundled into one direct appeal. This Court considered and denied your claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. You report that the Supreme Court affirmed your conviction on July 1, 1994. Therefore, visiting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel would be barred under Rule 61(i)(4) in that this issue has been formerly adjudicated. Additionally, it has been over ten (10) years since the Supreme Court affirmed conviction and it is barred under Rule 61(i)(1), which requires postconviction applications to be filed within three (3) years of a Supreme Court decision affirming your conviction. You attempt to avoid the aforementioned procedural bars by claiming that there has been a miscarriage of justice or that revisiting these claims is required for purposes of fundamental fairness. George A. Jackson Page 2 October 25, 2004 The escape valve in the application of the procedural bars under Rule 61(i)(5) is to be applied narrowly. This provision should only be considered when there is a "colorable claim" that the conviction was obtained under circumstances that a constitutional violation undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to that conviction. Your general claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not fall into this category. Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is procedurally barred and is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Yours very truly, T. Henley Graves THG:baj cc: Prothonotary Department of Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
