Title: Ortiz v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ISAIAS R. ORTIZ, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§    No. 211, 2022 
§   
§ 
§    Court Below–Superior Court 
§    of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§    Cr. ID No.  0210012072 (N) 
§                                            
   
 
Submitted: October 28, 2022 
Decided:  January 24, 2023 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Isaias R. Ortiz, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his motion for correction of illegal sentence.  For the reasons that 
follow, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
In 2003, a Superior Court jury found Ortiz guilty of one count of 
trafficking cocaine in excess of 100 grams, one count of trafficking cocaine in an 
amount between 5 and 50 grams, one count of possession with intent to deliver 
cocaine (“PWID”), one count of maintaining a vehicle for the keeping of controlled 
substances, one count of maintaining a dwelling for the keeping of controlled 
2 
 
substances, one count of second-degree conspiracy, and one count of endangering 
the welfare of a child.  Following a presentence investigation, the Superior Court 
sentenced Ortiz as follows: for trafficking cocaine in excess of 100 grams, to 20 
years of incarceration; for trafficking cocaine in an amount between 5 and 50 grams, 
to 15 years of incarceration; for PWID, to 20 years of incarceration; for maintaining 
a vehicle for the keeping of controlled substances, to 2 years of incarceration, 
suspended for decreasing levels of supervision; for maintaining a dwelling for the 
keeping of controlled substances, to 1 year of incarceration, suspended for probation; 
for second-degree conspiracy, to 1 year of incarceration, suspended for probation; 
and for endangering the welfare of a child, to 1 year of incarceration, suspended for 
probation.  We affirmed Ortiz’s convictions and sentence on appeal.1 
(3) 
Between 2006 and 2019, Ortiz filed numerous unsuccessful motions for 
postconviction relief and sentence modification.2  In 2017, Ortiz also filed a motion 
for correction of illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence for PWID was illegal 
because it exceeded the statutory maximum penalty for a Class C felony.  The 
Superior Court denied the motion, noting that the statutory maximum penalty did 
 
1 Ortiz v. State, 2004 WL 2741185 (Del. Nov. 16, 2004). 
2 See, e.g., Ortiz v. State, 2007 WL 188173 (Del. Jan. 25, 2007) (affirming the denial of Ortiz’s 
first motion for postconviction relief); Ortiz v. State, 2012 WL 4377782 (Del. Sept. 25, 2012) 
(affirming the denial of Ortiz’s second motion for postconviction relief); Ortiz v. State, 2015 WL 
4066011 (Del. June 30, 2015) (affirming the denial of Ortiz’s third motion for postconviction 
relief); Ortiz v. State, 2021 WL 1310668 (Del. Apr. 7, 2021) (affirming the denial of Ortiz’s fourth 
motion for postconviction relief). 
3 
 
not apply to Ortiz’s PWID sentence, which was enhanced under then-extant 16 Del. 
C. § 4763(a)(3)3 because Ortiz had previously been convicted of PWID in New York 
State. 
(4) 
In May 2021, Ortiz filed another motion for correction of illegal 
sentence, arguing that (i) his trafficking sentences were illegal because they 
exceeded the applicable statutory mandatory-minimum terms and (ii) his PWID 
sentence was improperly enhanced because the State had neither moved to sentence 
Ortiz as a non-addict under then-extant 16 Del. C. § 4751(d) nor provided proof that 
his New York State conviction for PWID was a felony conviction.  In his motion, 
Ortiz also observed, among other things, that he was entitled to earn good-time 
credits after serving the minimum-mandatory portion of his sentence.  On August 
26, 2021, the Superior Court granted Ortiz’s motion to the extent that it sought to 
clarify that Ortiz was entitled to earn good-time credits after serving the minimum-
mandatory portion of his sentence.4  Noting that the court is always free to impose a 
 
3 When Ortiz committed the conduct that gave rise to his convictions, Section 4763(a)(3) provided, 
“In any prosecution for violation of [PWID] … where a defendant has previously been convicted 
of any offense under this chapter, or under any statute of the United States or of any state relating 
to the delivery or possession with intent to deliver of a controlled substance or counterfeit 
substance classified in Schedules I and II as a narcotic drug, the minimum term of imprisonment 
shall be 30 years and the maximum term for such conviction shall be 99 years and 15 years of such 
minimum term shall be a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment and shall not be subject to 
suspension and no person shall be eligible for probation or parole during such minimum term.” 16 
Del. C. § 4763(a)(3) (2002). 
4 In its August 26, 2021 order, it appears that the Superior Court inadvertently referenced the 
applicable minimum-mandatory terms for drug trafficking as amended in 2004. 
4 
 
sentence above a minimum-mandatory term, the Superior Court denied Ortiz’s 
motion concerning the legality of Ortiz’s trafficking sentences.  With regard to the 
legality of Ortiz’s PWID sentence, the Superior Court gave the State additional time 
to obtain a certified copy of Ortiz’s New York PWID conviction.  After receiving 
confirmation that Ortiz’s New York PWID conviction was indeed a felony 
conviction, the Superior Court denied the remainder of Ortiz’s motion on May 25, 
2022.  This appeal followed. 
(5) 
We review the denial of a motion for correction of illegal sentence for 
abuse of discretion.5  To the extent a claim involves a question of law, we review the 
claim de novo.6  A motion to correct an illegal sentence may be filed at any time.7  
A sentence is illegal if it exceeds statutory limits, violates the Double Jeopardy 
Clause, is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served, 
is internally contradictory, omits a term required to be imposed by statute, is 
uncertain as to its substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction did not 
authorize.8  
(6) 
On appeal, Ortiz argues, as he did below, that his trafficking sentences 
are illegal because they exceed the applicable minimum-mandatory terms and that 
 
5 Fountain v. State, 2014 WL 4102069, at *1 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014). 
6 Id. 
7 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 
8 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
5 
 
his PWID sentence is illegal because it exceeds the statutory maximum for a Class 
C felony.  Ortiz also argues that the Superior Court’s order that he is entitled to good-
time credits after completing the minimum-mandatory portion of his sentence 
conflicts with 16 Del. C. § 4753A(b)—which prohibits anyone serving a minimum-
mandatory term for drug trafficking from accruing good-time credits—and that the 
Superior Court was required to hold a hearing before “re-sentencing” him.  We find 
no merit to Ortiz’s arguments. 
(7) 
As a preliminary matter, Ortiz’s assumption that his trafficking 
sentences (20 years and 15 years, respectively) were imposed as minimum-
mandatory terms is incorrect.  As discussed at sentencing, Ortiz faced a 33-year 
minimum-mandatory sentence (15 years for trafficking cocaine in excess of 100 
grams, 15 years for PWID, and 3 years for trafficking cocaine in an amount between 
5 and 50 grams).  The sentencing judge exercised his discretion and imposed a 
sentence in excess of the applicable minimum-mandatory term for each trafficking 
offense. 
(8) 
With this background, we turn to the legality of Ortiz’s sentences.  For 
trafficking cocaine in an amount in excess of 100 grams, a Class B felony, Ortiz 
faced a minimum-mandatory sentence of 15 years9 and up to 20 years in prison.10  
 
9 16 Del. C. § 4753A(a)(2)(c) (2002) (repealed 2011). 
10 11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(2) (2002). 
6 
 
His 20-year sentence for trafficking cocaine in excess of 100 grams therefore falls 
within statutory limits and is not illegal.  For trafficking cocaine in an amount 
between 5 and 50 grams, also a Class B Felony, Ortiz faced a minimum-mandatory 
sentence of 3 years11 and up to 20 years in prison.12  His 15-year sentence for 
trafficking cocaine in an amount between 5 and 50 grams therefore falls within 
statutory limits and is not illegal.  Finally, for PWID, Ortiz—a person previously 
convicted of PWID—faced an enhanced penalty: a minimum-mandatory sentence 
of 15 years and up to 99 years in prison.13  His 20-year sentence for PWID therefore 
falls within statutory limits and is not illegal.  As a final matter, the Superior Court’s 
order clarifying that Ortiz is entitled to earn good-time credits after serving the 
minimum-mandatory portion of his sentence neither amounted to a re-sentencing nor 
required a hearing.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court be AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
11 16 Del. C. § 4753A(a)(2)(a) (2002) (repealed 2011). 
12 11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(2) (2002). 
13 16 Del. C. § 4763(a)(3) (2002).