Case Title: Pearlman v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 428, 2008

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-03-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRIAN K. PEARLMAN,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 428, 2008 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0707015257 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 13, 2009  
 
 
 
 
   Decided: March 25, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 25th day of March 2009, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Brian K. Pearlman, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s August 12, 2008 order denying his motion for postconviction 
relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find no merit to the 
appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in January 2008, Pearlman pleaded guilty to 
one count of Exploitation of an Infirm Adult and three counts of Theft.  He was 
sentenced to a total of eleven years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 
two years for probation.  Pearlman did not file a direct appeal. 
 
2
 
(3) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his postconviction 
motion, Pearlman claims that a) the Superior Court judge sentenced him with a 
closed mind; and b) he should have been permitted to review the presentence 
report to ensure that information favorable to him was included. 
 
(4) 
Pearlman’s claims implicate only the sentences he received and not 
his conviction.  As such, they are not properly cognizable under Rule 61.1  Even if 
viewed under the standards applicable to a motion for sentence modification under 
Rule 35(b), Pearlman’s claims are unavailing.  The record reflects that Pearlman 
previously filed two unsuccessful motions for sentence modification in the 
Superior Court, the first on March 23, 2008 and the second on May 8, 2008.  As 
such, his instant motion is repetitive and may not be considered.2 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                          
 
1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a) (1). 
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).