From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Celatka

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent County
May 8, 2002
IK00-08-0376-R1, IK00-08-0383-R1 ID No. 0008008225 (Del. Super. Ct. May. 8, 2002)

Opinion

IK00-08-0376-R1, IK00-08-0383-R1 ID No. 0008008225

Submitted: April 18, 2002

Decided: May 8, 2002


ORDER

Upon consideration of the defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, it appears that:

(1) The defendant Philip J. Celatka, ("Celatka") pled guilty on December 6, 2000 to one count of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree, 11 Del. C. § 775; and one count of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child, 11 Del. C. § 778. Celatka was facing trial on these charges along with an additional twelve charges of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree, seven counts of Unlawful Sexual Penetration in the Third Degree, seven counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree, and one count of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. All the charges involved Celatka's young daughter. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Celatka was sentenced to seventeen years incarceration which was the minimum mandatory time, followed by probation. Had Celatka gone to trial and been convicted of all the charges, he would have faced nearly 200 years minimum mandatory time incarcerated. Celatka did not appeal his conviction or sentence to the Delaware Supreme Court. Instead, Celatka chose to file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. In his motion, Celatka alleges three grounds for relief and claims he did not raise the grounds earlier because of ineffective assistance of counsel.

(2) The Court referred this motion to Superior Court Commissioner Andrea M. Freud pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendation concluding that the motion for postconviction relief should be denied as procedurally barred.

(3) No objections to the Report have been filed.

NOW THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for the reasons stated in the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation dated April 18, 2002,

IT IS ORDERED that:

(A) The Commissioner's Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court;

(B) The defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED.


Summaries of

State v. Celatka

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent County
May 8, 2002
IK00-08-0376-R1, IK00-08-0383-R1 ID No. 0008008225 (Del. Super. Ct. May. 8, 2002)
Case details for

State v. Celatka

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF DELAWARE v. PHILIP J. CELATKA, Defendant

Court:Superior Court of Delaware, Kent County

Date published: May 8, 2002

Citations

IK00-08-0376-R1, IK00-08-0383-R1 ID No. 0008008225 (Del. Super. Ct. May. 8, 2002)

Citing Cases

Celatka v. Carroll

In April 2001, Celatka filed a pro se motion for state post-conviction relief under Delaware Superior Court…