State of Delaware v. Whiteman.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE v. BENJAMIN F. WHITEMAN, Defend ant. Submitted: Decided: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I.D. 30604628DI October 15, 2002 October 25, 2002 Upon Defe ndant s Mot ion for Correc tion of I llegal Se ntence . DENIED. ORDER This 25 th day of October, 2002, upon review of the Motion for Correction of Illegal Senten ce filed by D efendan t and the rec ord in this cas e, it appears tha t: (1) Defend ant, Benjamin Whiteman, has filed a Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence pursua nt to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). In his motion, Defendant argues that the C ourt illeg ally senten ced him as a hab itual off ender. (2) In July 1987, the Court sentenced Defendant to ten years incarceration suspended after three years for probation as a result of Defendant s guilty plea to second degree Burgla ry. Although the C ourt signed an Order declaring Defendant to be a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. ยง 4214(a), the Court chose not to sentence Defendant as a habitual offen der. (3) In August 1989, a Superior Court jury convicted Defendant of third degree Unlawful Sexual Penetration. The Court subsequently sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment as a habitua l offende r. The Co urt determin ed that, beca use it had pr eviously found Defendant to be a habitual offender, it did not have to decide the issue again. (4) sentence. In Decem ber 2000 , Defend ant move d the Cou rt to correct his 1989 Defendant argued that, contrary to the Court s determination that it was unnecessary to revisit Defendant s habitual offender statu s, his 1989 sentence was illegal because there was no prior order from 1987 declaring him to be a habitual offender. In January 2001, the Court denied the motion on two grounds. First, the Court determined that the Court in 1987 had signed an order declaring Defendant to be a habitual offender. Second, the Court determined that Defendant s motion was to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner and so was time barred under Ru le 35(a). 1 Defendant appealed and, on October 23, 2001, the Supreme Court affirmed this Court s decision.2 (5) On October 1, 2002, Defendant filed a second Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence. In his current motion, Defendant m akes the same arguments he previously raised in his original motion. As summarized above, the Court previously found 1 See State v. Whiteman, Del. Super., I.D. 30604628DI, Barron, J. (Jan. 10, 2001)(ORDER). 2 See Whiteman v. State, Del. Supr., No. 40, 2001, Veasey, C. J. (Oct. 23, 2001)(ORDER). 2 Defendant s arguments to be without merit. There is no need for reconsideration of those arguments. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant s Motion for C orrection of Illega l Sen tenc e is hereb y DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________ Carl Goldstein, Judge oc: pc: Prothonotary Benjamin F. Whiteman 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
