Jackson v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE GEORGE JACKSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 323, 2012 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County Cr. ID No. 91S03837DI Submitted: July 5, 2012 Decided: September 27, 2012 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 27th day of September 2012, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and the appellee s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: (1) This appeal is from the Superior Court s May 16, 2012 order denying the appellant s fifth motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. On appeal, the appellant raises the same claims that he advanced in his postconviction motion. Additionally, the appellant claims that the Superior Court judge, who presided over the 1992 jury trial and has denied the appellant s motions, is biased against him. In the absence of plain error in the record, we reject the appellant s conclusory assertion of racial bias on the part of the Superior Court judge who presided over the appellant s jury trial and decided the appellant s postconviction motions. (2) In its May 16, 2012 order, the Superior Court determined, and we agree, that the appellant s fifth postconviction motion is time-barred1 and repetitive2 and raises formerly adjudicated claims.3 On appeal, the Court concludes that the appellant s time-barred and repetitive motion raising formerly adjudicated claims does not warrant consideration in the interest of justice4 or because of a miscarriage of justice.5 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State s motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1). Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2). 3 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4). 4 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2), (4). 5 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). 2 2

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.