Ramos v. State ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CLINT S. RAMOS, §
§ No. 379, 2021
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§ Court Below–Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID No. 1107020064 (K)
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: December 14, 2021
Decided: February 14, 2022
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion
to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) Clint S. Ramos filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his
motion for correction of illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion to affirm the
judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Ramos’ opening brief
that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) In 2012, Ramos pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree burglary
(the “burglary case”). The Superior Court immediately sentenced Ramos as follows:
(i) for the first count of third-degree burglary, to three years of Level V incarceration,
suspended after one year for decreasing levels of supervision, and (ii) for the second
count of third-degree burglary, to three years of Level V incarceration, suspended
for one year of Level III probation. Ramos did not appeal his convictions or
sentence.
(3) Between 2014 and 2016, the Superior Court found Ramos in violation
of the terms of his probation and re-sentenced him on three occasions. In 2017,
Ramos picked up new criminal charges. On April 13, 2017, Ramos resolved these
new criminal charges by pleading guilty to one count of second-degree forgery (the
“forgery case”). The Superior Court immediately sentenced him to two years of
Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level II probation. Between 2018
and 2020, the Superior Court found Ramos in violation of the terms of his probation
and re-sentenced him in both the burglary case and the forgery case on two
occasions.
(4) On April 26, 2021, the Superior Court again found Ramos in violation
of the terms of his probation in both cases. The Superior Court sentenced Ramos as
follows: (i) for the first count of third-degree burglary, to one year and eight months
of Level V incarceration, suspended after one year followed by decreasing levels of
supervision; (ii) for the second count of third-degree burglary, to one year of Level
V incarceration, suspended for decreasing levels of supervision; and (iii) for second-
degree forgery, to one year and one month of Level V incarceration, suspended for
decreasing levels of supervision. In the following months, Ramos filed three
2
motions for sentence modification or reduction, all of which the Superior Court
denied.
(5) On November 15, 2021, Ramos filed a motion for correction of
sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). Ramos claimed that he was
illegally sentenced to nineteen months of Level V incarceration “for a petty violation
of probation,” which exceeded the maximum presumptive sentence and made his
sentence vague, ambiguous, and internally contradictory. The Superior Court denied
the motion. The Superior Court found that the motion was repetitive; the sentence
was imposed after a violation-of-probation hearing and Ramos is not amenable to
probation at this time; and the sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at
sentencing. This appeal followed.
(6) On appeal, Ramos argues that the Superior Court erred by treating his
motion for sentence correction under Rule 35(a) as a motion for sentence
modification under Rule 35(b) and that his sentence impermissibly exceeds the
Truth-in-Sentencing Act (“SENTAC”) guidelines. A motion for correction of an
illegal sentence under Rule 35(a) is very narrow in scope.1 A sentence is illegal if it
exceeds statutory limits, violates double jeopardy, is ambiguous with respect to the
time and manner in which it is to be served, is internally contradictory, omits a term
1
Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).
3
required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to its substance, or is a sentence
that the judgment of conviction did not authorize.2
(7) Although it appears that the Superior Court mistakenly treated Ramos’
motion as a motion for sentence modification under Rule 35(b), we nonetheless
affirm the Superior Court’s denial of Ramos’ motion on the independent and
alternative grounds that it lacked merit under Rule 35(a).3 When sentencing a
defendant for a violation of probation, 11 Del. C. § 4334(c) authorizes the trial court
to impose the balance of the Level V time remaining to be served on the original
sentence “or any lesser sentence.”4 The record reflects that Ramos’ VOP sentence
did not exceed the time remaining on his prior sentences. And a sentence is not
illegal simply because it exceeds the SENTAC guidelines.5
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to affirm
be GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Karen L. Valihura
Justice
2
Id.
3
See Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that the Court
may affirm a trial court’s judgment for reasons different than those articulated by the trial court).
4
11 Del. C.§ 4334(c).
5
Walters v. State, 2013 WL 4540040, at *1 (Del. Aug. 23, 2013) (citing Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d
839, 845 (Del. 1992) (“It is established Delaware law that a defendant has no legal or constitutional
right to appeal a statutorily authorized sentence simply because it does not conform to the
[SENTAC guidelines.”)).
4