Benjamin F. Whiteman v. State of Delaware
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BENJAMIN F. WHITEMAN, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 251, 2015 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 30901716DI Submitted: July 22, 2015 Decided: September 9, 2015 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER This 9th day of September 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Benjamin Whiteman, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated May 11, 2015, denying his motion for correction of sentence. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. (2) Whiteman was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender in 1989. This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. 1 Since that time, Whiteman has filed multiple repetitive motions arguing that his habitual offender sentence is illegal because it was imposed in an illegal manner. This Court has affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of all of Whiteman’s challenges to his sentence. As we already have held, Whiteman is “foreclosed from asserting a claim based upon that issue” because our prior decisions constitute the law of the case. 2 (3) We will not continue to invest scarce judicial resources in addressing Whiteman’s repetitive and frivolous claims. In the future, any appeal or writ filed by Whiteman challenging the legality of his habitual offender sentence will be subject to involuntary dismissal without prior notice under Supreme Court Rule 29(c). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice 1 2 Whiteman v. State, 1991 WL 12112 (Del. Jan. 11, 1991). Whiteman v. State, 2013 WL 5346310 (Del. Sept. 20, 2013). 2
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.
