Opinion
No. 240, 2015.
07-21-2015
Eladio CRUZ, Defendant Below–Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below–Appellee.
ORDER
KAREN L. VALIHURA, Justice.
This 21st day of July 2015, after careful consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the State's motion to affirm, it is manifest that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court's well-reasoned decision dated April 29, 2015. The function of Superior Court Criminal Rule 36 is to allow the trial court to correct clerical mistakes in judgments. The Superior Court did not err in denying the appellant's motion under Rule 36 because his assertion of a clerical error in the Superior Court's sentencing order was unsupported. The Superior Court's April 5, 1991 sentencing order did not-as a matter of fact—and could not—as a matter of law, stipulate that the appellant was eligible for parole on his life sentence imposed under the Truth in Sentencing Act. Moreover, to the extent the motion alleged an error in the Department of Correction's records, Rule 36 may not be used to correct DOC errors.
11 Del. C. § 4354.
Williams v. State, 2011 WL 1716446 (Del. May 4, 2011).
--------
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.