Summary
affirming Superior Court's conclusion that a motion for correction of illegal sentence was not, in fact, challenging the legality of the appellant's sentence but instead was challenging the factual basis for his guilty plea; the motion was properly considered as a motion for postconviction relief under Rule 61, and it did not overcome the procedural bars
Summary of this case from Thomas v. StateOpinion
No. 370, 2015
10-21-2015
Leroy Cook, Sr., Defendant Below–Appellant, v. State of Delaware, Plaintiff Below–Appellee.
ORDER
Leo E. Strine, Jr., Chief Justice
This 21st day of October 2015, the Court has considered the appellant Leroy Cook's opening brief, the State's motion to affirm, and the record on appeal. We find it manifest that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court's well-reasoned decision dated June 16, 2015. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that Cook's motion for correction of illegal sentence, in fact, was not challenging the legality of his sentence but instead was challenging the factual basis for Cook's 2008 guilty plea. As such, Cook's motion was properly considered as a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Cook's attempt to avoid Rule 61's procedural bars was unavailing. Cook's motion was both untimely and repetitive, and Cook failed to overcome the procedural hurdles.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).