State v. Whiteman

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE v. BENJAMIN F. WHITEMAN Defendant.

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Date published: Mar 13, 2017

Case ID No.: 30604628DI (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2017)

Opinion

Case ID No.: 30604628DI Case ID No.: 30901716DI

03-13-2017

STATE OF DELAWARE v. BENJAMIN F. WHITEMAN Defendant.

Vivian L. Medinilla Judge

ORDER

AND NOW TO WIT, this 13^th day of March, 2017, upon consideration of Defendant Benjamin F. Whiteman ("Defendant")'s Motion to Reconsider this Court's September 28, 2016 Order, the sentence imposed, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

1. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1989. Defendant has since filed in excess of twelve postconviction relief motions challenging his sentence. Multiple opinions of this Court, the Supreme Court, and U.S. District Court have affirmed his sentence.

2. On March 10, 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed this Court's September 28, 2016 denial of Defendant's Rule 35(a) Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence.¹ While that appeal was pending, Defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider this Court's Order on October 11, 2016.² In this Motion, he requests that this Court reconsider its Order "in the interest of justice."³

1 See Whiteman v. State, No. 501, 2016, Cr. ID No. 30604628DI, at *1 (Del. Supr. Mar. 10, 2017).

2 See D.I. #111 (filed Oct. 11, 2016).

3 Id.

3. The Supreme Court, in its March 10, 2017 Order, enjoined Defendant from "proceeding in the Court on any claim related to his 1989 sentence. Any request by Whiteman to invoke the Court's appellate or original jurisdiction in any matter concerning his 1989 sentence must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit containing the certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e)."⁴

4 Whiteman, No. 501, 2016, Cr. ID No. 30604628DI, at *2-3.

4. Accordingly, this Court denies Defendant's Motion to Reconsider this Court's September 28, 2016 Order denying his Rule 35(a) Motion. The multiple orders of this Court and the Supreme Court upholding the validity of his sentence form the "law of the case."⁵ Defendant's "untimely, repetitive, and frivolous filings constitute abuse of the judicial process."⁶ Therefore, "in the interest of justice," this Court denies Defendant's October 11, 2016 Motion to Reconsider the September 28, 2016 Order denying his Rule 35(a) Motion.

5 See State v. Wright, 131 A.3d 310, 320-24 (Del. 2016) (discussing "law of the case" doctrine).

6 Whiteman, No. 501, 2016, Cr. ID No. 30604628DI, at *2. --------

IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Reconsider this Court's September 28, 2016 Order is DENIED.

/s/_________

Vivian L. Medinilla

Judge oc: Prothonotary
cc: Defendant

Department of Justice

Office of Defense Services

Investigative Services Office