State v. Santiago

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, v. DENNIS SANTIAGO, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Date Submitted: Date Decided: I.D. No. 89000941DI November 2, 2020 December 28, 2020 ORDER Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Sentence (“Motion”),1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, statutory and decisional law, and the record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT: 1. On June 1, 1989, Defendant pled guilty to one count of First-Degree Unlawful Sexual Intercourse and two counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony (“PDWDCF”).2 2. On September 8, 1989, Defendant was sentenced as follows: for First- Degree Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, life imprisonment; for the first count of PDWDCF, 10 years at Level V; and for the second count of PDWDCF, 10 years at 1 2 D.I. 53. D.I. 2. Level V, to be served consecutively with the sentence for the first count of PDWDCF.3 3. sentence. Defendant has made many attempts to challenge and modify his To begin, on September 8, 1992, Defendant filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief.4 On October 26, 1992, the Superior Court denied the motion.5 On November 25, 1992, Defendant appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Delaware.6 On April 21, 1993, the Supreme Court affirmed.7 4. On April 7, 1999, Defendant filed a Motion for Modification of Sentence.8 On April 23, 1999, the Superior Court denied the motion.9 5. On March 31, 2000, Defendant filed a Motion for Correction of Illegal Sentence.10 In that motion, Defendant clarified that he was invoking Superior Court Criminal Rules 35(a) and 61(i)(5).11 The Superior Court construed the motion as a Motion for Postconviction Relief and denied it on August 3, 2000.12 On August 16, 3 D.I. 7. D.I. 13–14. 5 D.I. 17. 6 D.I. 19. 7 Santiago v. State, 1993 WL 144870, at *1 (Del. Apr. 21, 1993). 8 D.I. 27. 9 D.I. 28. 10 D.I. 29. 11 Id. 12 D.I. 34. 2 4 2000, Defendant appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court but then voluntarily dismissed his appeal.13 6. On September 11, 2000, Defendant filed another Motion for Postconviction Relief and a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea.14 On September 19, 2000, the Superior Court denied these motions.15 On October 4, 2000, Defendant appealed this decision to the Supreme Court,16 and on March 16, 2001, the Supreme Court affirmed.17 7. Finally, on November 2, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Modification of Sentence.18 In his Motion, Defendant asks the Court to “do something to adjust [his] sentence.”19 He explains that he has unsuccessfully sought early parole, commutation of his sentence, and an application for good cause shown from the Department of Correction pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217.20 In addition to his Motion, Defendant has provided the Court with a list of programs that he has completed and educational achievements that he has attained.21 13 D.I. 35; Santiago v. State, 2001 WL 263122, at *1 (Del. Mar. 16, 2001). D.I. 41–42. 15 D.I. 44. 16 D.I. 45. 17 Santiago, 2001 WL 263122, at *1. 18 D.I. 53. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Id. 3 14 8. Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b) governs the modification and reduction of sentences.22 Pursuant to Rule 35(b), a motion to modify a sentence of imprisonment must be filed no later than 90 days after the sentence is imposed.23 Defendant filed the instant Motion more than 90 days after his sentence was imposed; therefore, his Motion is untimely. 9. The Court may consider an untimely motion (1) if the Department of Correction files an application pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217 or (2) in “extraordinary circumstances.”24 The Department of Correction has not filed an application pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4217, so this exception does not apply. Next, “extraordinary circumstances” are circumstances that “specifically justify the delay, are entirely beyond [Defendant’s] control, and have prevented [Defendant] from seeking the remedy on a timely basis.”25 The Supreme Court of Delaware “has held that participation in educational and rehabilitative programs, while commendable, does not, in and of itself, constitute extraordinary circumstances for purposes of Rule 35(b).”26 Because the Court does not find any qualifying extraordinary circumstances in Defendant’s Motion, the “extraordinary circumstances” exception does not apply, so Defendant’s Motion is time barred. 22 Super Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). Id. 24 Id. 25 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 145 (Del. 2016) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 26 Id. at 145–46 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 23 10. In addition, Defendant’s Motion is repetitive, so the Motion is barred on that basis as well.27 Defendant filed a Motion for Modification of Sentence on April 7, 1999. Rule 35(b) specifically forbids the Court from considering repetitive motions.28 11. The Court finds that Defendant’s sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing. No additional information has been provided to the Court that would warrant a modification of Defendant’s sentence. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Sentence is DENIED. Jan R. Jurden Jan R. Jurden, President Judge Original to Prothonotary cc: 27 28 Dennis Santiago (SBI# 00240930) A.J. Roop (DAG) Super Ct. Crim. R. 35(b). Id. 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.