IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BROOKS CORNISH, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 691, 2015
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 0703024261
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: March 2, 2016
Decided: April 12, 2016
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
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
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).
2
(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.”).
3
Cornish v. State
Combined Opinion