Title: Colon v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 572, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 12, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
OMAR COLON,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 572, 2005 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
)  Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
)  ID No. 0104009021 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  April 12, 2006 
Decided:  May 12, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 12th day of May, 2006, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Omar Colon, defendant-below, pleaded guilty to cocaine trafficking.  
A Superior Court judge sentenced him to ten years in prison at Level V, suspended 
after five years.1  Sixteen months after the judge sentenced him, Colon filed a 
motion to reduce his sentence.  In his motion, Colon alleged that the judge violated 
Blakely v. Washington2 and United States v. Booker3 by exceeding the SENTAC 
                                                 
1  
The same Superior Court judge that sentenced Colon heard and denied Colon’s Rule 
35(b) motion.  Throughout this ORDER we refer to the Superior Court judge as “judge.” 
 
2  
542 U.S. 296 (2004). 
 
 
2
guidelines recommended sentence.  Specifically, Colon contends that the judge 
relied on “unreliable facts.”4  Colon now appeals from the judge’s later denial of 
his motion to reduce his sentence.  Because Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35 requires a 
motion for a reduction of a sentence to be filed within ninety days from the 
imposition of the sentence, Colon’s claim is time barred and we must affirm. 
(2) 
On April 14, 2001, the police arrested Colon for numerous drug 
charges after executing a search warrant for his apartment.  On November 11, 
2003, Colon pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine (five to fifty grams) – a class 
B felony5 – and the State entered a nolle prosequi on the remaining charges.  The 
State also agreed to recommend six years at Level V suspended after five years 
with the remaining year at Level II probation.  
(3) 
As promised, the prosecutor recommended six years at Level V 
suspended after five years.  Noting his lack of a criminal record, Colon asked the 
judge for the three-year mandatory minimum sentence.6  Given the disparity in the 
                                                                                                                                                             
3  
543 U.S. 220 (2005). 
 
4  
The record supports that the SENTAC guidelines provided for a mandatory minimum 
three year prison sentence.  See Infra n. 8. 
 
5  
At the time of Colon’s arrest the statutory sentencing range for a Class B felony was two 
to twenty years at Level V.  See 11 Del. C. §4205(b)(2)(2001)(current version 11 Del. C. 
§4205(b)(2)(2005).  In 2003, the maximum term for imprisonment was extend from twenty to 
twenty five years.  See House Bill 210, 74 Del. Laws, Ch. 106 (2003).  It is not disputed that the 
20 year maximum applies to Colon’s case. 
 
6  
At the time of Colon’s arrest the mandatory minimum sentence for cocaine trafficking 
was three years.   See 16 Del. C. §4753(A)(2001)(current version at 16 Del. C. §4753(A)(2005). 
 
3
parties’ positions, the judge asked the prosecutor to explain the State’s position.  
The prosecutor explained that police had information that Colon “was one of the 
top drug dealers in Wilmington, … moving over 14 kilos a week.”  Moreover, the 
prosecutor summarized the items police seized in the search:  the amount of drugs 
in Colon’s pocket, a large amount of drugs in the apartment, a large amount of a 
substance used to cut cocaine for distribution, a four foot hydraulic press used to 
manufacture cocaine, Tyvek suits, ventilator masks, 600 grams of marijuana, 172 
Ecstasy pills, and over $8,000 in cash.   
(4) 
After the prosecutor’s explanation, the judge told defense counsel that 
he would order a presentence investigation if defense counsel found it helpful.7  
                                                                                                                                                             
This section was amended in 2003 and the minimum term of imprisonment was reduced to two 
years.  See House Bill 210, 74 Del. Laws, Ch. 106 (2003).  It is not disputed that the three year 
mandatory minimum applies to Colon’s case. 
 
7  
The judge stated: 
 
 
 
[Defense Counsel], based on what the State is saying, the 
best that the Court can offer is, if you think that it might be helpful, 
I would order a presentence investigation.  But if even a substantial 
portion of what [the prosecutor] said is true, then the five-year 
sentence actually could be considered generous. 
 
 
So if you think that there’s a reasonable possibility that Mr. 
Colon would get less than five years, after a full review of his 
background and the case by a presentence investigation, I’d be 
inclined to grant that. 
 
 
But if you think that things will not get any better as a 
result of the presentence investigation, then we could go forward 
with sentencing pretty much on the terms of the State’s 
recommending… 
 
 
Well, I thought at least I tried to be clear for the proposition 
that [if] even a portion of what the State is saying is true, the Court 
is not going to impose the minimum mandatory today… 
 
4
Defense counsel twice conferred with Colon before responding “we would like to 
proceed with sentencing today.”  The judge then sentenced Colon to ten years at 
Level V, suspended after five years for one year at Level II probation.8  On March 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
 
I guess what I’m saying, so we are clear on this, if the 
presentence investigation reveals that Mr. Colon was operating this 
sort of enterprise that the State is suggesting, he was operating as 
opposed to his codefendant, the sentence could get worse than five 
years, if that’s what the presentence investigation is going to 
reveal. 
 
 
On the other hand, if it’s going to reveal that Mr. Colon is 
otherwise a hard-working person, who has a legitimate job, is 
taking care of a family, so forth, then perhaps there’s a possibility 
it would be less than the five-year sentence. 
 
 
8  
It is worth noting that the following exchange took place before the judge sentenced 
Colon: 
 
THE COURT: 
 
The charge to which you’re pleading guilty, as was 
explained out loud and is presented on the form that you reviewed 
carefully, includes from three to 20 years in prison.  The first three 
years of that sentence is mandatory.  There’s nothing that even the 
Court can do about that.  Three years has to be imposed, and it 
cannot be suspended.  The sentence could be as much as 20 years.  
Do you follow me so far? 
 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. 
 
THE COURT: 
 
Now, you have a plea agreement with the State that says 
the State is going to recommend that your sentence be six years 
in prison, suspended after five years in prison;  the first three 
years of the five-year sentence being the minimum mandatory 
sentence that I just explained.  Still with me? 
 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. 
 
THE COURT: 
 
And then after serving five years in prison, the State is 
recommending low-level probation for one year.  The Court is not 
bound by the State’s recommendation.  There are sentencing 
guidelines.  They recommend the three-year, minimum mandatory 
sentence.  The Court is not bound by the guideline, either.  
 
5
7, 2005, sixteen months after the imposition of his sentence, Colon filed his motion 
to reduce his sentence under Rule 35(b).  The judge denied his motion.  Colon now 
claims on appeal that the judge relied on mere “allegations” and “facts not 
admitted” by Colon as the basis for exceeding the SENTAC guidelines. 
(5) 
We have addressed the time requirements of Rule 35 on many 
occasions.9  In Morrison v. State, we stated: 
 
Rule 35(b) provides that the court may modify a sentence of 
 
imprisonment on a motion made within ninety days after the 
 
sentence is imposed. On a motion filed more than ninety days 
 
after the sentence is imposed, the court will consider a sentence 
 
modification "only in extraordinary circumstances" or pursuant 
 
to title 11, section  4217 of the Delaware Code. Section 4217 
 
establishes a procedure to permit the Department of Correction 
 
to apply for a modification of an offender's sentence for good 
 
cause shown, including "exceptional rehabilitation," when 
 
the Department certifies that the release of the offender shall 
 
not constitute a substantial risk to the community or the 
 
offender. 10 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
 
So what that means is that when you are sentenced, which 
is likely to happen today, you will receive a sentence of at least 
three years in prison, and it could be as much as 20 years in 
prison.  Do you follow all of that? 
 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. 
 
9  
Morrison v. State, 2004 Del. LEXIS 143 at *3(Del. Supr. March 24, 2004)(claim timed 
barred);  Fennell v. State, 2005 Del. LEXIS 276 at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. July 19, 2005)(claim time 
barred); Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200 (Del. 2000)(claim time barred); Ketchum v. State, 801 
A.2d 10 (Del. 2002)(claim time barred);  Jones v. State, 817 A.2d 804 (Del. 2003)(claim timed 
barred);  Phillips v. State, 830 A.2d 409 (Del. 2003)(claim time barred). 
 
10 
 2004 Del. LEXIS 143 at *3. 
 
 
6
Here, Colon has not alleged any extraordinary circumstances that would justify 
considering his motion more than ninety days of the sentencing, nor has the 
Department of Correction applied for a modification of Colon’s sentence under 11 
Del. C. §4217.11  Before Colon could expect the sentencing judge to consider 
modifying his sentence he was required to establish that he filed his Rule 35(b) 
motion within ninety days of his original sentence.  Colon filed his motion sixteen 
months after the imposition of his sentence.  Therefore, we must affirm the judge’s 
denial of Colon’s motion to reduce his sentence on the basis that his motion is time 
barred.12 
                                                 
11  
Moreover, any contention that Colon’s motion could be considered under Rule 35(a) 
lacks merit.  Rule 35(a) permits the correction of an “illegal sentence” at “any time” and permits 
the correction of a sentence “imposed in an illegal manner” within 90 days of the imposition of 
the sentence.  The 90 day requirement would apply to Colon under Rule 35(a) because his claim, 
that the judge relied on unreliable facts to exceed the SENTAC guidelines, is a claim that the 
judge imposed his sentence in an illegal manner.  See Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 
(Del. 1998); Fennell, 2005 Del. LEXIS 276 at *3 (noting the distinction between an “illegal 
sentence” and an “illegally imposed” sentence). 
 
12  
While the judge articulated a different rationale for his ruling in this case, we may affirm 
on grounds other than those relied upon by the judge.  Fennell, 2005 Del. LEXIS 276 at *4 
(citing Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361 (Del. 1995)).  Even if we were to 
reach the merits and decide Colon’s claim that the judge relied on “facts not admitted” to exceed 
the SENTAC guidelines, we would affirm.  Colon has provided nothing to indicate that his 
sentence was “imposed on the basis of demonstrably false information or information lacking a 
minimal indicium of reliability.”  Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 843 (Del. 1992).  Moreover, 
Colon waived his opportunity to challenge the State’s characterization of events when he 
declined a presentence investigation. 
 
7
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court be, and the same here by is, AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice