Title: Karim v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ABDULLAH KARIM,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 148, 2001
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN82-09-0053 thru
§  -0055, and -1580 thru -1582
§
§
Submitted: September 28, 2001
  Decided:
October 25, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 25th day of October 2001, upon consideration of the parties’
briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Abdullah Karim (formerly known as
Edward J. Kelly), was convicted in 1983 of three counts of first degree
robbery, two weapon offenses, and second degree conspiracy. The Superior
Court sentenced Karim as an habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. §
4214(b) to life imprisonment without parole.  On direct appeal, one of
Karim’s robbery convictions was reduced to attempted robbery, but the
2
remaining convictions and sentences were affirmed.1  In August 2000,
Karim filed a motion seeking to correct his sentence, which the Superior
Court denied.  This is Karim’s appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his
motion.
(2)
In this appeal, Karim contends that his life sentence as an
habitual offender was inappropriate because, under Morales v. State,2 there
was insufficient evidence that Karim had been convicted in 1972 in federal
court for bank robbery.  As the State points out, however, this same issue
was raised by Karim and resolved against him in a federal habeas corpus
action.3  That decision is the law of the case and precludes further review of
this issue.4  Nothing in Morales, which is factually distinguishable from
Karim’s case, compels us to take a fresh look at this issue.
(3)
Having carefully considered the parties= respective briefs, we
find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed
on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated March 16,
2001.
                                                
1Kelly v. State, Del. Supr., No. 23, 1984 (July 9, 1985) (ORDER).
2 Del. Supr., 696 A.2d 390 (1997).
3 See Kelly v. Redman, D. Del., C.A. No. 87-83, Farnan, J. (Sept. 23, 1987).
4Brittingham v. State, Del. Supr., 705 A.2d 577, 579 (1998) (law of the case
doctrine bars relitigation under Rule 35(a) of previously resolved claims of illegal
sentence).
3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele______________
Justice