holding that the Superior Court correctly determined that neither Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 nor Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b) could be used to collaterally attack a criminal conviction
Summary of this case from Hall v. StateNos. 90, 2007, 124, 2007.
August 2, 2007.
Appeal from the Superior (Sussex) 0107021899.
Decisions Without Published Opinions, Affirmed.
holding that the Superior Court correctly determined that neither Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 nor Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b) could be used to collaterally attack a criminal conviction
Summary of this case from Hall v. Stateaffirming the Superior Court's decision that Civil Rule 60(b) could not be used to collaterally attack a criminal conviction
Summary of this case from Landry v. Stateaffirming summary denial of Rule 35(b) motion on the basis that relief under civil Rule 60(b) was not applicable in a criminal proceeding
Summary of this case from Johnson v. StateFull title:Jackson v. State
Court:Supreme Court of Delaware
Date published: Aug 2, 2007
The Delaware Supreme Court has held that Rule 60 cannot be used to attack collaterally a criminal conviction,…
Landry v. StateTo the extent the Superior Court treated Landry's Rule 60(b) motion as a motion under Rule 35(b), the court…