State v. Jackson ( 2023 )

SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
PAUL R. WALLACE NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
JUDGE 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 10400
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
(302) 255-0660
Submitted: June 21, 2023
Decided: July 18, 2023
Mr. Gigere F. Jackson John S. Taylor, Esquire
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center Deputy Attorney General
1181 Paddock Road Department of Justice
Smyrna, Delaware 19977 820 N. French Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
RE: State v. Gigere Jackson
ID No. 1707014544
Cr A. Nos. 17-08-0024, etc.
Mr. Jackson’s Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence
Dear Messrs. Jackson and Taylor:
The Court has reviewed Mr. Jackson’s most recent filing through which he,
pro se, invokes Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) in an attempt to reduce his
cumulative sentence.1 In short, Mr. Jackson says he was wrongfully convicted of a
Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”) count and a Possession
of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited (“PABPP”) count because, while two guns
and two sets of ammunition were in his possession, they were all secreted in his
basement in a single cooler.2
1
Def. R. 35(a) Mot. (D.I. 76).
2
Id. at 1-4.
State v. Gigere Jackson
ID No. 1707014544
July 18, 2023
Page 2 of 6
Mr. Jackson’s claim of an invalid conviction is incognizable here. Rule 35(a)
is no vehicle for vacating a conviction—the rule presumes one’s conviction is valid.3
Rule 35(a) is, instead, a means only of contesting one’s sentence.4 Because
Mr. Jackson’s claim is that he could have been convicted of only two of the four
indicted offenses, relief via Rule 35(a) motion is unavailable.5
That said, for the sake of completeness, the Court has reviewed: Mr. Jackson’s
request; his supplemental letter6; the record in his case; and, the applicable law and
Court rules.
In 2018, following a two-day non-jury trial, Mr. Jackson was convicted of two
counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”) and two counts
of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PABPP”).7
3
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578-79 (Del. 1998). E.g., Wehde v. State, 2015 WL
5276752, at *3 (Del. Sept. 9, 2015) (“A proceeding under Rule 35 presumes a valid conviction.
Rule 35 is not a means for [an inmate] to attack the legality of his convictions or to raise allegations
of error in the proceedings before the imposition of sentence.” (internal citation omitted)).
4
Buchanan v. State, 2013 WL 5918802, at *1 (Del. Nov. 1, 2013) (“The purpose of [Rule
35(a)] is to permit correction [of] an illegal sentence, not to reexamine errors occurring at trial or
prior to the imposition of sentence.” (emphasis in original)).
5
See Frink v. State, 2008 WL 4307199, at *1 (Del. Sept. 22, 2008) (finding that inmate’s “claims
do not fall within the parameters of Rule 35(a) and instead implicate alleged errors occurring prior
to the imposition of sentence, which are explicitly outside the scope of Rule 35(a)”).
6
D.I. 79.
7
Verdict Sheet, State v. Gigere F. Jackson, ID No. 1707014544 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 8, 2018)
(D.I. 19); see State v. Jackson, 2020 WL 2192348 (Del. Super. Ct. May 5, 2020).
State v. Gigere Jackson
ID No. 1707014544
July 18, 2023
Page 3 of 6
Mr. Jackson was sentenced to serve: (a) ten years at Level V for one PFBPP
count (IN17-08-0024); and (b) ten years at Level V followed by six months of
supervised probation for the second PFBPP count (IN17-08-0025).8 The Court
suspended the sentence on the PABPP charges. Mr. Jackson’s cumulative 20-year
period of unsuspended imprisonment is comprised wholly of minimum terms of
incarceration that had to be imposed and could not be suspended.9 And his two terms
of unsuspended incarceration were ordered, as then-required, to be served
consecutively.10
Mr. Jackson docketed a timely direct appeal from his convictions and
sentence.11 While his appeal was pending, he timely filed a pro se motion under
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) requesting reduction of the Level V term of his
8
Modified Sent. Order, State v. Gigere F. Jackson, ID No. 1707014544 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb.
18, 2019) (D.I. 30).
9
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 1448(e)(1)(c) (2017) (“Notwithstanding any provision of this section
or Code to the contrary, any person who is a prohibited person as described in this section and who
knowingly possesses . . . or controls a firearm . . . while so prohibited shall receive a minimum
sentence of . . . c. Ten years at Level V, if the person has been convicted on 2 or more separate
occasions of any violent felony.”).
10
Mr. Jackson’s terms of incarceration for the two the PFBBPP counts—because he was
previously convicted of at least one Title 11 violent felony—could not, under then-extant law, be
imposed to be served concurrently either with each other or with any other sentence of confinement
imposed. Id. at § 3901(d).
11
See Not. of Appeal, Gigere F. Jackson v. State of Delaware, No. 73, 2019 (Del. Feb. 20, 2019).
State v. Gigere Jackson
ID No. 1707014544
July 18, 2023
Page 4 of 6
sentence.12 The Court stayed and deferred decision on the sentence-reduction
motion while Mr. Jackson’s appeal was pending.13 In October 2019, the Supreme
Court affirmed Mr. Jackson’s convictions and sentence.14
The Court then denied the Rule 35(b) motion on the merits, finding that
Mr. Jackson’s cumulative term of imprisonment is a minimum mandatory statutory
sentence that cannot be reduced or suspended.15 Thereafter, he filed an unsuccessful
Rule 61 motion.16 And now, Mr. Jackson has filed this motion for correction of
illegal sentence under Superior Court Rule 35(a).17
Criminal Rule 35(a) permits this Court to correct an illegal sentence “at any
time.”18 But relief under Rule 35(a) is available only when the sentence imposed:
(1) exceeds the statutorily-authorized limits; (2) omits a term required to be
12
D.I. 34.
13
See Order, State v. Gigere F. Jackson, ID No. 1707014544 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 8, 2019) (D.I.
35) (staying Jackson’s Rule 35(b) motion during pendency of appeal); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b)
(“The court may decide the motion or defer decision while an appeal is pending.”).
14
Jackson v. State, 2019 WL 5067096, at *2 (Del. Oct. 8, 2019).
15
State v. Jackson, 2020 WL 2192348, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. May 5, 2020) (“In short, no
matter the factors, facts, or circumstances Jackson asks the Court to consider, his cumulative term
of imprisonment is a minimum statutory sentence that simply cannot be reduced under
Criminal Rule 35(b).”).
16
State v. Jackson, 2022 WL 1076083, at *12 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2022), appeal
dismissed, 2022 WL 2154418, at *1 (Del. June 14, 2022).
17
D.I. 76.
18
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a).
State v. Gigere Jackson
ID No. 1707014544
July 18, 2023
Page 5 of 6
imposed by statute; (3) is uncertain as to its substance, or (4) is a sentence that the
judgment of conviction did not authorize.19
To reiterate, Mr. Jackson does not actually challenge his sentence. Rather, he
seeks vacatur of two of his four convictions so that the two corresponding sentences
fall therewith. Mr. Jackson says that because “[t]he weapons and ammunition were
all located in one place at the same time during one single course of conduct,” he
could only have been convicted of one firearm charge and one ammunition charge.20
Mr. Jackson cites four Delaware Supreme Court decisions for support.21 But none
speak to the propriety of his multiple PFBPP and PABPP convictions here.
In contrast, the issue he now raises has been considered and squarely rejected
under Delaware law.22 Most specifically, in Buchanan v. State our Supreme Court
19
Brittingham, 705 A.2d at 578.
20
Def. R. 35(a) Mot. at 2.
21
Parker v. State, 201 A.3d 1181, 1192 (Del. 2019) (finding “theft of a motor vehicle and felony
theft are the ‘same offense’ for double jeopardy purposes”); Williams v. State, 796 A.2d 1281,
1288 (Del. 2002) (finding the multiplicity doctrine applies where a defendant does not “formulate
two separate intents to distribute cocaine even though he separated the cocaine into different
caches”); Poteat v. State, 840 A.2d 599, 606 (Del. 2003) (finding “the General Assembly intended
for Aggravated Menacing to be a lesser-included offense of Robbery in the First Degree” and
concluding “the convictions for those separate crimes during the same occurrence must be
merged”); Hall v. State, 473 A.2d 352, 356-57 (Del. 1984) (finding “2 times convicted” under the
habitual offender statute applies “only to those offenders who have been twice convicted of the
specified felonies in prior proceedings where the second conviction took place on account of an
offense which occurred after sentencing had been imposed for the first offense”).
22
See Buchanan v. State, 2011 WL 3452148, at *4 (Del. Aug. 8, 2011) (each weapon
possessed—even though possessed simultaneously—warranted a separate count, conviction, and
sentence); Brown v. State, 2021 WL 2588923, at *1 (Del. Jun. 24, 2021) (affirming convictions
State v. Gigere Jackson
ID No. 1707014544
July 18, 2023
Page 6 of 6
denied postconviction relief where the defendant argued inter alia that three
charges—two charges for possession of two separate firearms, and one charge for
possession of ammunition—should have merged into a single offense.23 The
Supreme Court rejected that contention finding that merger was inappropriate as
“[e]ach handgun and the ammunition constituted a different offense.”24
Here, Mr. Jackson was found in possession of two firearms and two sets of
ammunition. Those offenses do not merge.25 And so—even if brought in a
procedurally proper manner—Mr. Jackson’s claim that one firearm conviction and
one ammunition conviction should be dismissed is without substantive merit.
Accordingly, Mr. Jackson’s Rule 35(a) motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Paul R. Wallace, Judge
cc: Prothonotary-Criminal
for two counts under Delaware’s person-prohibited statute based on defendant’s possession of a
single firearm and ammunition for that firearm); see also Patrick v. State, 261 A.3d 1282, 1290-
91 (Del. 2021) (citing Buchanan and observing that “a charge for each act of possession under the
[PFBPP] statute [i]s proper, meaning the relevant unit of prosecution is each act of possession and
not [the defendant’s] status as a person prohibited”).
23
Buchanan, 2011 WL 3452148, at *4.
24
Id.25
Id.; Brown, 2021 WL 2588923, at *1.