Case Title: Ramirez v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 133, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-08-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PATRICK M. RAMIREZ,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 133, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0708029559 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 24, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 3, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This third day of August 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Patrick M. Ramirez, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s February 9, 2010 order denying his motion for 
correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
35(a).  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the 
 
2
Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in June 2008, Ramirez, with the 
assistance of counsel, pleaded guilty to two counts of Delivery of Cocaine.  
He admitted that he was eligible for sentencing as a habitual offender under 
Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4214(a).  Ramirez was sentenced as a habitual 
offender to a total of eleven years of Level V incarceration.  Ramirez did not 
file a direct appeal, but did submit a motion for correction of sentence, 
which the Superior Court denied.  The Superior Court docket sheet reflects 
that, in addition to his motion for correction of sentence, Ramirez also filed a 
postconviction motion pursuant to Rule 61.  The Superior Court advised 
Ramirez that his motion was not in proper form and that it should be re-filed 
once the instant appeal had been decided.     
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Ramirez presents claims related to his 
postconviction motion rather than his motion for correction of sentence.   
 
(4) 
Under Rule 35(a), a motion for correction of sentence is 
designed to address only illegal sentences---that is, sentences outside the 
statutory limits, sentences that violate double jeopardy, sentences that are 
ambiguous or internally contradictory, or sentences that omit a statutorily-
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3
required term.2  There is no evidence in the record before us that Ramirez’ 
sentences are illegal in any respect.  Because there is no basis for a Rule 
35(a) claim, we conclude that the judgment of the Superior Court must be 
affirmed.   
 
(5) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State of Delaware’s 
motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is 
AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
  
                                                 
2 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).