Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of Alem Lopez's motion challenging his sentence. The Court held that Lopez's sentences for manslaughter and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony were not illegal under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a), and that exceeding the prosecutor's recommendation or SENTAC Guidelines did not render them illegal. The Court further held that Lopez's remaining claims concerned the manner of imposition of sentence and were untimely.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court erred by treating Lopez's motion for correction of an illegal sentence under Rule 35(a) as a motion for sentence reduction under Rule 35(b).
- Whether Lopez's sentence was illegal because it exceeded the prosecutor's recommendation and the SENTAC Guidelines, violated double-jeopardy principles, or contained other statutory or structural defects.
- Whether Lopez's remaining challenges to the information considered at sentencing and the characterization of his conviction were untimely claims that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner.
Holdings
- Lopez's sentence was not illegal because the manslaughter and PFDCF sentences fell within statutorily authorized limits, did not violate double jeopardy, and contained no ambiguity, contradiction, omission, or uncertainty.
- A sentence is not illegal merely because it exceeds the sentence recommended by the prosecutor or the SENTAC Guidelines.
- Claims that a sentence was imposed in an illegal manner must be asserted within ninety days of sentencing, absent extraordinary circumstances or a request under 11 Del. C. § 4217.
Key quotations
“A sentence is illegal under Rule 35(a) when it exceeds the statutorily authorized 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 required to be imposed by statute, is uncertain as to substance, or is a sentence that the judgment of conviction did not authorize.” (at 2)
“A sentence is not illegal because it exceeds the sentence recommended by the prosecutor or SENTAC Guidelines.” (at 3)
Factual background
In 2004, a grand jury charged Alem Lopez with multiple offenses, including first-degree murder. In 2006, Lopez pleaded guilty to manslaughter as a lesser-included offense and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. The Superior Court sentenced him to twenty-five years of Level V incarceration for manslaughter, suspended after twenty-three years, and ten years of Level V incarceration for the firearm offense. In 2022, Lopez challenged the sentence as illegal, arguing that it exceeded statutory and sentencing-guideline recommendations and was based on improper considerations.
Procedural history
A grand jury charged Lopez with multiple crimes, including first-degree murder. He pleaded guilty in 2006 to manslaughter and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and the Superior Court imposed prison sentences. After an earlier unsuccessful postconviction proceeding, Lopez filed a 2022 motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). The Superior Court treated it as a Rule 35(b) sentence-reduction motion and denied it as untimely, then denied reargument. The Delaware Supreme Court granted the State's motion to affirm and affirmed on the alternative ground that the sentence was not illegal.