Opinion
No. 402, 2003.
Submitted: October 3, 2003.
Decided: November 12, 2003.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County, Cr.A. Nos. IK00-08-0376 and 0383.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices.
ORDER
This 12th day of November 2003, upon consideration of appellant's opening brief, appellee's motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Phillip Celatka, filed this appeal from the Superior Court's denial of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court's judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Celatka's opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) In December 2000, Celatka pled guilty, pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(C), to one count of first degree unlawful sexual intercourse and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child. The victim was Celatka's minor daughter. The Superior Court sentenced Celatka, in accordance with his plea agreement, to a total period of 17 years imprisonment followed by probation.
Celatka did not file a direct appeal. Instead, in 2001, Celatka filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the Superior Court denied. This Court affirmed that decision on appeal.
Celatka v. State, Del. Supr., No. 311, 2002, Walsh, J. (Aug. 29, 2002).
(3) In his motion for correction of an illegal sentence, Celatka argued that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction in his case and that he should have been prosecuted in the Family Court for incest. This same claim was raised and rejected during the postconviction proceedings. The Court's ruling on that issue is the law of the case. Celatka's attempt to restate the same claim in the form of a motion for correction of sentence is unavailing.
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 579 (Del. 2000) (holding that law of the case doctrine bars relitigation, under Rule 35(a), of an "illegal sentence" where that issue has been previously decided).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.