Case Title: Goldsborough v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 20, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-04-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DONALD GOLDSBOROUGH, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 20, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§ 
§  C.A. No. K12A-06-004 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 27, 2013 
Decided: April 9, 2013 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 9th day of April 2013, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) The plaintiff-appellant, Donald Goldsborough, appeals from a 
Superior Court December 26, 2012 order affirming a June 6, 2012 order of 
the Court of Common Pleas that, in turn, affirmed the denial by the Justice 
of the Peace Court of his motion for a new trial after being adjudged 
“responsible” for failing to obey a red traffic signal.  The defendant-
appellee, the State of Delaware, moves to affirm the Superior Court’s 
 
2
judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief 
that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) On December 22, 2010, Goldsborough was making a left turn 
from Route 13 North onto Loockerman Street in Dover, Delaware, when he 
ran a red light.  His license plate number was recorded by a “traffic light 
signal violation monitoring system,” and he was issued a “notice of civil 
violation” by the Dover Police and the Delaware Department of 
Transportation (“DelDOT”) for failing to comply with a red traffic signal 
under 21 Del. C. § 4101(d). 
 
(3) At Goldsborough’s request, a bench trial was held in the Justice 
of the Peace Court on April 14, 2011.  At the trial, an expert from DelDOT 
testified that the speed limit was 25 miles per hour and that the yellow light 
interval at the intersection of Route 13 and Loockerman Street was 3 
seconds.  That testimony supported the issuance of the ticket.  Goldsborough 
presented no evidence at the hearing.  Based upon the evidence presented, 
the Justice of the Peace Court entered a judgment of “responsible” against 
Goldsborough and assessed him a fine of $110.00. 
 
(4) On May 3, 2011, 19 days later, Goldsborough moved to reopen, 
claiming that he had newly discovered evidence that he wanted the Justice of 
                                                 
1 SUPR. CT. R. 25(a). 
 
3
the Peace Court to consider.  The new evidence consisted of two 
photographs of speed limit signs from two different intersections—the 
intersection of Route 13 and Loockerman Street, and the intersection of 
Route 13 and Division Street—that, according to Goldsborough, showed that 
the speed limit in the left turn lane was 35 miles per hour, and not 25 miles 
per hour, which in turn required a longer yellow light interval than 3 
seconds.  The Justice of the Peace Court, treating the motion as one for a 
new trial under Rule 59,2 denied it on the grounds of untimeliness and 
relevance.  Although not explicitly analyzing the motion under Rule 60,3 the 
Justice of the Peace Court also noted that the photographs did not constitute 
newly discovered evidence. 
 
(5) On June 14, 2011, Goldsborough appealed the Justice of the 
Peace Court’s decision to the Court of Common Pleas, claiming that the 
Justice of the Peace Court had abused its discretion in denying his motion.  
In support of his argument that the photographs were relevant, 
Goldsborough submitted another photograph that had not been previously 
                                                 
2 J.P. CT. CIV. R. 59(a) and (c) (a motion for a new trial must be served and filed within 
10 days after judgment). 
3 J.P. CT. CIV. R. 60(b) (2) (a party may be relieved of a final judgment on the ground of 
newly discovered evidence which, by due diligence, could not have been discovered at 
the time of trial).  
 
4
submitted that purportedly supported his argument that the speed limit at the 
intersection was actually 35, rather than 25, miles per hour.   
 
(6) On June 6, 2012, the Court of Common Pleas issued an order 
affirming the decision below on the grounds that Goldsborough’s motion 
was untimely under Rule 59, and that the photographs he sought to have 
considered by the Justice of the Peace Court did not constitute newly 
discovered evidence under Rule 60.  The Court of Common Pleas did not 
consider the new and additional photograph submitted by Goldsborough, 
because it had not been presented to the Justice of the Peace Court in the 
first instance.   
 
(7) Goldsborough then appealed to the Superior Court, again on the 
ground that the Justice of the Peace Court had abused its discretion when it 
denied his motion for a new trial.  On December 26, 2012, the Superior 
Court held that the Justice of the Peace Court had properly denied 
Goldsborough’s motion as untimely and had properly determined that the 
evidence he sought to introduce post-trial was not newly-discovered.  The 
Superior Court further held that the Justice of the Peace Court’s 
determination that the speed limit at the intersection was 25 miles an hour 
was fully supported by the evidence presented at the hearing and that there 
was no error of law.  Finally, the Superior Court held that the Court of 
 
5
Common Pleas properly refused to consider the additional photograph 
presented by Goldsborough because it was not part of the record below. 
 
(8) On appeal to this Court, Goldsborough claims that: (a) his case 
was “mishandled” by the Justice of the Peace Court; (b) he was entitled to a 
jury trial; (c) the Delaware laws pertaining to “red light enforcement” 
infringe the constitutional rights of Delaware residents; (d) he is personally 
entitled to damages in the amount of $1,030.50, representing fines and court 
costs; (e) an additional $2,786.507.00 in fraudulent fines is owed to 
motorists in Dover during 2010 and 2011; and (f) this Court should order the 
State to change the yellow light interval on Route 13 to at least a four-
second interval.4 
 
(9) On appeal to this Court from the Superior Court’s affirmance of a 
decision of the Court of Common Pleas that itself affirmed a decision of the 
Justice of the Peace Court, this Court will uphold the Superior Court’s 
judgment if there is no legal error and the factual findings of the trial court 
are supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical 
reasoning process.5  We have reviewed the record in this case carefully and 
                                                 
4 On March 27, 2013, following the completion of briefing, Goldsborough filed a 
“request for amendment” in this Court.  He now seeks $3,518,761.89 on behalf of 
motorists fraudulently fined in Dover. 
5 Hsu v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 9 A.3d 476 (Del. 2010) (citing Moss v. Prudential-
Bache Sec., Inc., 581 A.2d 1138, 1140 (Del. 1990)). 
 
6
conclude that there was no legal error on the part of the Superior Court in 
affirming the decision of the Court of Common Pleas and no abuse of 
discretion.  Moreover, we agree with the Superior Court that the findings of 
the Justice of the Peace Court were supported by the record and were the 
product of an orderly and logical reasoning process.  Therefore, 
Goldsborough’s claim that his case was “mishandled” is without merit.  As 
for Goldsborough’s additional claims, the record reflects that they were 
asserted for the first time on this appeal.  We therefore decline to consider 
them.6 
 
(10) It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented are controlled by settled 
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED, 
and Goldsborough’s late-filed “request for amendment” is hereby stricken. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice 
                                                 
6 SUPR. CT. R. 8.