Court Opinion

ID: 9386138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-11 16:03:39.366698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:54.275638
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAMIE L. BAKER,                          §
                                         §   No. 19, 2023
       Defendant Below,                  §
       Appellant,                        §   Court Below—Superior Court
                                         §   of the State of Delaware
       v.                                §
                                         §   Cr. ID No. 1403009360 (K)
STATE OF DELAWARE,                       §
                                         §
       Appellee.                         §

                          Submitted: March 6, 2023
                          Decided:   April 6, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, 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, Jamie L. Baker, filed this appeal from the Superior

Court’s denial of her motion for sentence review. The State has moved to affirm the

judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Baker’s opening brief

that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

      (2)    In 2014, Baker was indicted for first-degree murder and other offenses

arising from the death of her husband, James D. Baker II. On February 6, 2017, she

pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder, in exchange

for which the State agreed to dismiss the other charges. Following a presentence
investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Baker to fifty years of Level V

incarceration, suspended after forty years for decreasing levels of supervision.

         (3)     Baker did not file a direct appeal. In 2018, she filed a motion for

postconviction relief, in which she asserted that her counsel provided ineffective

assistance and other claims. The Superior Court denied the motion, and Baker did

not appeal. On December 30, 2022, Baker filed a motion for sentence review. The

Superior Court denied the motion because the court found no extraordinary

circumstances warranting review of the sentence more than ninety days after the

sentence was imposed. Baker has appealed to this Court.

         (4)     We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion under Rule 35(b)

for abuse of discretion.1 Under Rule 35(b), a motion for reduction or modification

of sentence must be filed within ninety days of sentencing, unless the defendant

demonstrates “extraordinary circumstances” or the Department of Correction files

an application under 11 Del. C. § 4217.2 Baker claims that her counsel provided

ineffective assistance, causing her to plead guilty, and asserts that she was denied

the right to have an expert analyze the toxicology evidence relating to her husband’s

death. We cannot conclude that the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying

Baker’s motion. Baker’s claims do not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances

1
    Benge v. State, 101 A.3d 973, 976-77 (Del. 2014).
2
    DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CRIM. PROC. 35(b).
                                                 2
that overcome the time limitation of Rule 35(b) or establish entitlement to relief

under that rule.3

       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/ Gary F. Traynor
                                               Justice

3
  Cf. Davis v. State, 2016 WL 358965, at *2 (Del. Jan. 28, 2016) (“The proper procedural vehicle
for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is Rule 61, not Rule 35.”); Anderson v. State, 2017
WL 446889 (Del. Jan. 20, 2017) (“To the extent Anderson challenges his conviction, Rule 61, not
Rule 35, is the exclusive remedy for a person seeking to set aside a judgment of conviction . . . .”);
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998) (explaining the narrow function of Rule 35
and that it is “not to re-examine errors occurring at the trial or other proceedings prior to the
imposition of sentence” (internal quotation omitted)).
                                                  3