Eladio Cruz v. State of Delaware

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ELADIO CRUZ, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 240, 2015 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 30007952DI Submitted: May 22, 2015 Decided: July 21, 2015 Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices ORDER 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. 1 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.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice 1 11 Del. C. § 4354. 2 Williams v. State, 2011 WL 1716446 (Del. May 4, 2011). 2

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.