Case Title: Morales v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 206, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
FRANCISCO MORALES,
§
§
No.  206, 2004
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware, 
v.
§
in and for New Castle County 
§
in PN01-04-0447.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Def.  ID No.  0104000110
Submitted:  July 6, 2004
Decided:  October 7, 2004
BEFORE STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 7  day of October 2004, upon consideration of the appellant’s
th
opening brief and the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm, it appears to the
Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Francisco Morales, filed this appeal from the
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for modification of sentence.  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 Morales’ opening brief that this appeal
is without merit.  We agree and affirm.
See House Bill 210, 74 Del.  Laws, Ch.  106 (2003) (codified at Del.  Code Ann.
1
tit.  16, § 4753A(a)(2)(b)). 
See State v.  Ismaaeel, 820 A.2d 644 (Del.  Super.  2004) (concluding that H.B. 210
2
applied only to offenses committed after June 30, 2003, the effective date of the legislation).
2
(2)
In December 2001, Morales pleaded guilty to Trafficking in
Cocaine (50-100 grams).  He was sentenced to ten years at Level V, five of
which comprised a minimum mandatory term, suspended after six years for
probation.  
(3)
In January 2003, Morales filed a motion for modification of
sentence.  Morales sought a modification on the basis that House Bill 210 had
reduced from five years to four years the minimum mandatory sentence for
Trafficking in Cocaine that had applied to Morales in December 2001.   By
1
order dated April 15, 2004, the Superior Court denied Morales’ request for a
sentence modification.  Relying on its January 13, 2004 decision in State v.
Ismaaeel, the Superior Court ruled that the ameliorative sentencing provisions
of House Bill 210 did not apply retroactively to Morales’ sentence.   This
2
appeal followed. 
(4)
By Order dated July 9, 2004, this Court affirmed the Superior
Court’s judgment in State v.  Ismaaeel, thereby rejecting the argument that the
Ismaaeel v.  State, 2004 WL 1587040 (Del.  Supr.).
3
3
amended drug trafficking statute could be applied retroactively.   Accordingly,
3
we find no error in the Superior Court’s denial of Morales’ motion for
modification of sentence.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele
Chief Justice