Case Title: Cornish v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 691, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BROOKS CORNISH, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 691, 2015 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  Cr. ID No. 0703024261 
§   
§ 
§   
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  March 2, 2016 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  April 12, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 12th day of April 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
On November 21, 2007, the appellant, Brooks Cornish, resolved two 
cases by pleading guilty to Robbery in the First Degree, Assault in the Second 
Degree, and related charges.  Cornish was sentenced to a total of twenty-nine years 
of Level V incarceration, suspended after four years and successful completion of 
the Key Program for decreasing levels of supervision.   
(2) 
On February 4, 2014, the Superior Court found that Cornish had 
committed a violation of probation.  Cornish was sentenced to a total of seventeen 
2 
 
years and ten months of Level V supervision, suspended after six years for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  Cornish filed a motion to reduce sentence, which 
the Superior Court denied.  We affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment on appeal.1 
(3) 
On April 6, 2015, Cornish filed his first motion for postconviction 
relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The Superior Court denied the 
motion.  On May 18, 2015, Cornish filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  
The Superior Court denied the petition.  Cornish filed a notice of appeal, but later 
voluntarily dismissed the appeal. 
(4) 
On October 7, 2015, Cornish filed his second motion for 
postconviction relief.  The Superior Court denied the motion.  This appeal 
followed.     
(5) 
Under Rule 61(d)(2), a second or subsequent motion for 
postconviction relief will be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was 
convicted after trial and pleads with particularity the existence of new evidence 
that creates a strong inference of actual innocence or a new rule of constitutional 
law that is retroactively applicable.2  Cornish has not satisfied this standard.  We 
conclude therefore that the Superior Court did not err in denying Cornish’s motion 
for postconviction relief.   
                                                 
1 Cornish v. State, 2015 WL 327122 (Del. Jan. 26, 2015). 
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2). 
3 
 
(6) 
This is the third appeal Cornish has filed in less than two years 
relating to his 2014 violation of probation.  We warn Cornish that if he continues 
to file appeals from untimely and repetitive motions in the Superior Court, he will 
be enjoined from filing future appeals without leave of the Court.  We also warn 
Cornish to be mindful of Rule 61(j)3 and that he risks the forfeiture of good time 
under 10 Del. C. § 8805(a) if he files complaints found to be factually frivolous, 
malicious, or legally frivolous under 10 Del. C. §§ 8803(b) or (c). 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED 
and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
3 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(j) (“If a motion is denied, the state may move for an order requiring 
the movant to reimburse the state for costs and expenses paid for the movant from public 
funds.”).