Case Title: Torres v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 360, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-10-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CARLOS TORRES, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 360, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1001018873A 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 31, 2012 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: October 10, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 10th day of October 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Carlos Torres, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court judgment denying his motion for modification of sentence.  The State 
has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Torres’ opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  
We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in June 2011, Torres pled guilty to 
Manslaughter and Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a 
 
2
Felony (PFDCF).  The Superior Court sentenced Torres on both charges to a 
total period of twenty-eight years at Level V incarceration to be suspended 
after serving eighteen years in prison for decreasing levels of supervision.  
Torres did not appeal from his September 9, 2011 sentencing.  Instead, on 
October 5, 2011, he filed a pro se motion for reduction of sentence.  Counsel 
was appointed to represent Torres.  On February 29, 2012, Torres withdrew 
his pro se motion for sentence reduction.  On June 5, 2012, he filed a pro se 
motion for sentence modification, which the Superior Court denied.  This 
appeal followed.  
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Torres contends that the 
Superior Court abused its discretion in denying his motion for modification 
of sentence as untimely.  Torres contends he only withdrew his first timely-
filed, pro se motion for sentence reduction after the Superior Court informed 
him that it would allow him, with new counsel’s assistance, to refile a 
motion for reconsideration of sentence.   
(4) 
This Court will not interfere with the Superior Court’s denial of 
a motion for sentence reduction unless it is shown that the sentence imposed 
was beyond the maximum authorized by law or was the result of an abuse of 
 
3
discretion by the sentencing judge.1  In this case, Torres pled guilty to 
Manslaughter, a class B felony with a sentencing range of two to twenty-five 
years,2 and to PFDCF, another class B felony with a sentencing range of 
three to twenty-five years.3  The Superior Court’s twenty-eight year total 
sentence (to be suspended after serving eighteen years in jail), thus, was well 
within the authorized sentencing range. 
(5) 
Torres sought a reduction of sentence on the basis that drugs 
had played a major part in his decline and that, since entering prison, he had 
participated in programs, took responsibility for his actions and sought 
rehabilitation.  He asked the Superior Court to reduce his sentence by 
ordering his participation in a Level V program and then suspending the 
balance of his sentence for non-Level V time upon his successful completion 
of the program.   
(6) 
Even if we assume that Torres’ second motion for sentence 
reduction was timely filed, we nonetheless find no abuse of discretion in the 
Superior Court’s denial of the motion.  The Superior Court reconsidered the 
factual circumstances that led to its imposition of Torres’ original sentence 
and concluded that, while Torres’ desire to address his drug problem was 
                                                 
1 Conover v. State, 2005 WL 583746 (Del. Mar. 10, 2005) (citing Mayes v. State, 604 
A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992)). 
2 See DEL. CODE ANN. §§ 632(1), 4205(b)(2) (2007). 
3 See DEL. CODE ANN. § 1447A(b) (2007). 
 
4
commendable, that desire alone was not a sufficient basis to reduce his 
sentence.  We simply find no abuse of discretion in that ruling. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice