State v. Baltazar

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. ) ID No. 1204000588
)
ANTONIO BALTAZAR, )
)
Defendant. )
SUBMITTED: April 4, 2024
DECIDED: May 22, 2024
ORDER
Upon Consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Correction of Sentence and
Motion to Amend
DENIED.
This 22nd day of May, 2024, upon consideration of the Motion for
Correction of Sentence and Motion to Amend filed by Defendant Antonio
Baltazar, A.K.A. Omar Rivera (“Baltazar” or “Defendant”), it appears to the
Court that:
1. Defendant entered a guilty plea to four counts of Robbery in the First Degree
and one count of burglary in the second degree.1 He was sentenced on June
14, 2013 to 25 years at Level 5, followed by probation.2
1
Docket Item (“D.I.”) D.I. 51.
2
Id.
1
2. Motions for correction of illegal sentence must be brought pursuant to
Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a).3 Under Rule 35(a), the
Court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence
imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction
of sentence.4
3. Further, under Superior Court Rule 35(b) 5:
the court may reduce a sentence of imprisonment on a
motion made 90 days after the sentence is imposed.
This period shall not be interrupted or extended by an
appeal, except that a motion may be made within 90
days of the imposition of sentence after remand for a
new trial or for resentencing.
4. On March 27, 2024, Defendant filed these Motions: (1) Motion for Correction
of Sentence; and (2) Motion to Amend. 6
5. Baltazar’s first Motion for Correction of Sentence was litigated and denied on
February 24, 2020.7 Since then, he has filed two more motions under Superior
Court Criminal Rule 35, including this one. Baltazar unsuccessfully appealed
previous denials in 20158 and 2020.9 This time, Baltazar asks to amend his
3
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a).
4
Id.
5
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
6
D.I. 57.
7
D.I. 59.
8
D.I. 52.
9
D.I. 58.
2
sentence because “they are not included within the sentencing order.”10 He
also now makes a claim for correction of sentence. 11 In that claim, he argues:
Illegal Sentence occurred when the State failed to present
sufficient evidence to establish Defendant’s sentence
under indictment.12
6. Under Rule 35(a), Defendant has not established that the sentence imposed is
illegal. Defendant pled guilty. His guilty plea included admissions that he
committed the crimes for which he was indicted. This Court has previously
ruled that Defendant’s guilty plea was done knowingly, intelligently and
voluntarily. The sentence imposed by the court included 25 years at Level V,
20 of which was minimum mandatory time and was well within the statutory
maximum of 110 years. There is simply nothing illegal about Defendant’s
sentence under Rule 35(a).
7. Defendant is not entitled to relief under Rule 35(b). Motion was filed more
than 90 days after imposition of the sentence and is, therefore, time barred.13
Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 35(b), 14 the Court will not consider repetitive
requests for reduction or modification of sentence. Even if this motion was
timely and not repetitive, the Court does not find the existence of any
10
D.I. 61.
11
D.I. 60.
12
Id.
13
D.I. 59; Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
14
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b).
3
extraordinary circumstances justifying relief. No additional information has
been provided to the Court which would warrant a reduction or modification
of this sentence.
For the foregoing reasons, Baltazar’s third Motion for Correction of
Sentence is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Francis J. Jones, Jr.
Francis J. Jones, Jr., Judge
Original to Prothonotary
cc: Antonio Baltazar, SBI 00570210, SCI, Bldg. STB-A
Joseph S. Grubb, Deputy Attorney General
4