From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pearlman v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware
Mar 25, 2009
970 A.2d 257 (Del. 2009)

Summary

holding claim that only implicated non-capital sentence was not cognizable under Rule 61

Summary of this case from Huffman v. State

Opinion

No. 428, 2008.

March 25, 2009.

Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, Cr. ID No. 0707015257.

Brian Pearlman, pro se, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, DE.

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.


ORDER


This 25th day of March 2009, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The defendant-appellant, Brian K. Pearlman, filed an appeal from the Superior Court's August 12, 2008 order denying his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

(2) The record reflects that, in January 2008, Pearlman pleaded guilty to one count of Exploitation of an Infirm Adult and three counts of Theft. He was sentenced to a total of eleven years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after two years for probation. Pearlman did not file a direct appeal.

(3) In this appeal from the Superior Court's denial of his postconviction motion, Pearlman claims that a) the Superior Court judge sentenced him with a closed mind; and b) he should have been permitted to review the presentence report to ensure that information favorable to him was included.

(4) Pearlman's claims implicate only the sentences he received and not his conviction. As such, they are not properly cognizable under Rule 61. Even if viewed under the standards applicable to a motion for sentence modification under Rule 35(b), Pearlman's claims are unavailing. The record reflects that Pearlman previously filed two unsuccessful motions for sentence modification in the Superior Court, the first on March 23, 2008 and the second on May 8, 2008. As such, his instant motion is repetitive and may not be considered.

Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a) (1).

Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Pearlman v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware
Mar 25, 2009
970 A.2d 257 (Del. 2009)

holding claim that only implicated non-capital sentence was not cognizable under Rule 61

Summary of this case from Huffman v. State
Case details for

Pearlman v. State

Case Details

Full title:Pearlman v. State

Court:Supreme Court of Delaware

Date published: Mar 25, 2009

Citations

970 A.2d 257 (Del. 2009)

Citing Cases

State v. Windell

Super. June 29, 2016) (citing Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1)). Id. (citing Pearlman v. State, 970 A.2d 257…

State v. Marquin-Mendoza

Neither of these two scenarios applies in the case at bar. Id. (citing Pearlman v. State, 970 A.2d 257…