Case Title: Fidalgo v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 442, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LUIS FIDALGO, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 442, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 2112000947 and  
§                      2111014013 (N) 
§ 
§  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   February 5, 2024 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
March 22, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
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) 
The appellant, Luis Fidalgo, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s 
denial of a motion in which Fidalgo sought to have his sentences for two criminal 
offenses modified to run concurrently instead of consecutively.  The State has moved 
to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Fidalgo’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
Fidalgo resolved charges in two criminal cases by pleading guilty to 
stalking with a weapon, second-degree assault, act of intimidation, two counts of 
non-compliance with bond conditions, resisting arrest, and terroristic threatening.  
2 
 
After a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Fidalgo on 
December 2, 2022.  The sentences imposed for the assault and stalking offenses—
the sentences at issue in this appeal1—were as follows:  for stalking with a weapon, 
fifteen years of imprisonment, suspended after seven years for decreasing levels of 
supervision, and for second-degree assault, five years of imprisonment, suspended 
after three years for two years of Level III supervision with GPS monitoring.  The 
sentence order provided that all sentences of confinement would run consecutively.2 
(3) 
After filing various unsuccessful motions for postconviction relief or 
modification of sentence, in August 2023 Fidalgo filed a motion in which he asked 
the Superior Court to run his assault and stalking sentences concurrently instead of 
consecutively.  The Superior Court denied the motion.  The court held that the 
motion was an untimely and repetitive motion for sentence modification under 
Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b).  The court also stated that it “was 
aware of its ability to sentence concurrently at the time of sentencing” but 
determined that the consecutive sentences were and remained appropriate.   
(4) 
Fidalgo has appealed to this Court.  He argues that the Superior Court 
gave insufficient weight to his statements that he “feel[s] bad” and “regret[s] all that 
 
1 For the other offenses, Fidalgo was sentenced to suspended time or to pay a fine. 
2 See 11 Del. C. § 3901(d) (“The court shall direct whether the sentence of confinement of any 
criminal defendant by any court of this State shall be made to run concurrently or consecutively 
with any other sentence of confinement imposed on such criminal defendant. . . .”). 
3 
 
happened” and that the court erroneously determined that Fidalgo’s motion was 
time-barred under Rule 35(b), because he filed the motion under 11 Del. C. § 3901(d) 
and not under Rule 35(b). 
(5) 
We find no merit to the appeal.  We review the Superior Court’s denial 
of a motion for modification of sentence for abuse of discretion.3  The Superior Court 
did not err by treating the motion as an untimely motion for sentence modification 
under Rule 35(b), because “there is no separate procedure, other than that which is 
provided under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, to reduce or modify a sentence.”4  
Under Rule 35(b), a motion for reduction or modification of sentence must be filed 
within ninety days of sentencing, absent a showing of “extraordinary 
circumstances.”5  Moreover, the “court will not consider repetitive requests for 
reduction of sentence.”6  Fidalgo’s motion was filed well beyond the ninety-day 
limit, and the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the sentence 
was appropriate and that Fidalgo had not shown extraordinary circumstances 
warranting modification. 
 
3 Benge v. State, 101 A.3d 973, 976-77 (Del. 2014). 
4 Navarro v. State, 2020 WL 6281270, at *1 (Del. Oct. 26, 2020) (alteration omitted); see also id. 
(“Accordingly, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in treating the appellant’s ‘Motion 
to Run Level V Sentences Concurrently’ as an untimely-filed motion for sentence modification 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).”); Fountain v. State, 139 A.3d 837, 842 (Del. 2016) 
(explaining that the only mechanism for a defendant to seek to change previously-imposed 
consecutive sentences to concurrent ones is a motion under Rule 35(b)). 
5 DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CRIM. PROC. 35(b).  
6 Id. 
4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                 Chief Justice