State v. Jackson, Sr.
1404012395
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2016Background
- Eric Jackson was convicted on January 16, 2015, and sentenced February 5, 2016; he did not file a direct appeal.
- On June 7, 2016, Jackson was found to have violated probation and was sentenced to six months imprisonment with no probation to follow; that sentence was modified July 21, 2016, and he served part of it in a work-release center.
- Jackson filed a timely Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief while still serving his sentence; he completed his sentence and was fully released on November 5, 2016.
- Rule 61 in Delaware applies only to a person "in custody" under the sentence being challenged; Delaware courts uniformly require custody or future custody for standing under Rule 61.
- The court found Jackson has an extensive criminal record and could not show unique collateral consequences from the convictions that would preserve standing after release.
- Because Jackson was no longer in custody for the challenged conviction and could not establish collateral consequences, the court dismissed his Rule 61 motion as moot and for lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 61 movant must be "in custody" to have standing | Jackson sought postconviction relief under Rule 61 while challenging his conviction | State argued Rule 61 applies only to persons "in custody" for the challenged conviction | Court held Rule 61 requires the movant be in custody; Jackson lacked standing and claim was dismissed |
| Whether completion of sentence renders Rule 61 claims moot | Jackson maintained his motion was timely and merits review | State argued completion of sentence makes postconviction claims moot absent custody or collateral consequences | Court held completion of sentence rendered the claims moot and deprived Jackson of standing |
| Whether collateral consequences can preserve standing after release | Jackson did not assert or could not demonstrate specific collateral legal disabilities | State argued no collateral consequences shown to overcome custody requirement | Court held no collateral consequences were demonstrated, so the exception did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 654 A.2d 829 (Del. 1995) (timing of Rule 61 one-year period for defendants who do not appeal)
- Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716 (3d Cir. 2003) (defining "in custody" to include significant restraints and continuing governmental supervision)
- Gural v. State, 251 A.2d 344 (Del. 1969) (recognizing collateral legal disabilities as an exception to custody requirement)