Opinion
No. 148, 2001
Decided: October 25, 2001
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County; Cr.A. Nos. IN82-09-0053 thru -0055, and -1580 thru -1582.
AFFIRMED
Unpublished Opinion is below.
ABDULLAH KARIM, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 148, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Decided: October 25, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.
Myron T. Steele, Justice
ORDER
This 25th day of October 2001, upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Abdullah Karim (formerly known as Edward J. Kelly), was convicted in 1983 of three counts of first degree robbery, two weapon offenses, and second degree conspiracy. The Superior Court sentenced Karim as an habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. 4214(b) to life imprisonment without parole. On direct appeal, one of Karim's robbery convictions was reduced to attempted robbery, but the remaining convictions and sentences were affirmed. In August 2000, Karim filed a motion seeking to correct his sentence, which the Superior Court denied. This is Karim's appeal from the Superior Court's denial of his motion.
Kelly v. State, Del. Supr., No. 23, 1984 (July 9, 1985) (ORDER).
(2) In this appeal, Karim contends that his life sentence as an habitual offender was inappropriate because, under Morales v. State, there was insufficient evidence that Karim had been convicted in 1972 in federal court for bank robbery. As the State points out, however, this same issue was raised by Karim and resolved against him in a federal habeas corpus action. That decision is the law of the case and precludes further review of this issue. Nothing in Morales, which is factually distinguishable from Karim's case, compels us to take a fresh look at this issue.
Del. Supr., 696 A.2d 390 (1997).
See Kelly v. Redman, D. Del., C.A. No. 87-83, Farnan, J. (Sept. 23, 1987).
Brittingham v. State, Del. Supr., 705 A.2d 577, 579 (1998) (law of the case doctrine bars relitigation under Rule 35(a) of previously resolved claims of illegal sentence).
(3) Having carefully considered the parties' respective briefs, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court's well-reasoned decision dated March 16, 2001.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.