Case Title: Celatka v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 311, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PHILIP J. CELATKA, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 311, 2002  
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IK00-08-0376   
§  and -0383 
§  Cr. ID 0008008225 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 12, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 29, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This  29th  day of August 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
In December 2000, the defendant-appellant, Philip Celatka, 
pleaded guilty, pursuant to then-existing Superior Court Criminal Rule 
11(e)(1)(C), to one count of first degree unlawful sexual intercourse and one 
count of continuous sexual abuse of a child.  The victim was Celatka’s 
minor daughter.  The Superior Court sentenced him to thirty years at Level 
V incarceration, suspended after serving seventeen years for eight years at 
 
2
decreasing levels of supervision.  In April 2001, Celatka filed a petition for 
postconviction relief, which the Superior Court denied.  This appeal ensued.  
(2) 
Having carefully considered the parties= respective contentions 
and the record below, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior 
Court must be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned 
decision dated May 8, 2002, which adopted the Superior Court 
Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation.  Celatka’s claims were not 
raised prior to the entry of his guilty plea and thus were procedurally barred 
by Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(3).  Moreover, Celatka’s claims of 
ineffective assistance of counsel were conclusory and unsupported by the 
record and, thus, legally insufficient to establish that his counsel’s 
performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and was 
prejudicial.*    
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   s/Joseph T. Walsh 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
* See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984).