Title: Celatka v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 402, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 12, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PHILIP J. CELATKA, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 402, 2003 
§ 
§  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: October 3, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: November 12, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of November 2003, upon consideration of appellant’s opening 
brief, appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Phillip Celatka, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  The State of Delaware has filed a motion to 
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of Celatka’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm.  
(2) 
In December 2000, Celatka pled guilty, pursuant to Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(C), to one count of first degree unlawful sexual intercourse 
 
2
and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child.  The victim was Celatka’s 
minor daughter.  The Superior Court sentenced Celatka, in accordance with his 
plea agreement, to a total period of 17 years imprisonment followed by probation.  
Celatka did not file a direct appeal.  Instead, in 2001, Celatka filed a motion for 
postconviction relief, which the Superior Court denied. This Court affirmed that 
decision on appeal.1    
(3) 
In his motion for correction of an illegal sentence, Celatka argued that 
the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction in his case and that he should have been 
prosecuted in the Family Court for incest.  This same claim was raised and rejected 
during the postconviction proceedings.  The Court’s ruling on that issue is the law 
of the case.2  Celatka’s attempt to restate the same claim in the form of a motion 
for correction of sentence is unavailing.   
 
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/ E. Norman Veasey 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
1 Celatka v. State, Del. Supr., No. 311, 2002, Walsh, J. (Aug. 29, 2002). 
2 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 579 (Del. 2000) (holding that law of the case 
doctrine bars relitigation, under Rule 35(a), of an "illegal sentence" where that issue has been 
previously decided).