Title: Martinez v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RAPHAEL MARTINEZ, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 406, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0008013252 
§  
§ 
 
Submitted  August 21, 2006 
Decided:  October 5, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 5th day of October 2006, 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 defendant-appellant, Raphael Martinez, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  The State has moved to affirm 
the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of Martinez’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm. 
 
 
-2-
(2) 
The record reflects that Martinez pled guilty and was sentenced 
in April 2001 on charges that included escape after conviction and felony 
theft.  He did not appeal.  In March 2005, he filed a motion for modification 
of sentence, which the Superior Court denied. Again, he did not appeal.  In 
July 2005, he filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the Superior 
Court denied.  This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of 
postconviction relief on appeal.1  In July 2006, Martinez filed a motion for 
correction of sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) alleging 
that his sentence was illegal because he did not enter his guilty plea 
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.  The Superior Court denied his 
motion. 
 (3) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions 
on appeal, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court must 
be affirmed.  It is well-settled that the limited purpose of a motion under 
Rule 35(a) is to permit correction of an illegal sentence.2  It is not a means 
for a defendant to attack the legality of his convictions or to raise allegations 
of error occurring in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.3  
                                                 
1 Martinez v. State, 2006 WL 1640282 (Del. June 12, 2006). 
2 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
3 Id. 
 
 
-3-
Accordingly, we find no error in the Superior Court’s denial of Martinez’s 
motion for correction of sentence because the issue raised therein was not 
the proper subject of a motion under Rule 35(a). 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice