Case Title: Young v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 502, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-12-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IDRIS YOUNG, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 502, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 0511017930A 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 24, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 5, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 5th day of December 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the 
Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Idris Young, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 
order, dated September 8, 2016 and docketed on September 13, 2016, denying his 
motion for reargument.  Young sought reargument of a Superior Court order, dated 
and docketed on August 12, 2016, accepting the recommendation of a Superior 
Court commissioner and denying Young’s second motion for postconviction relief 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.   
 
2
(2) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Young argues that the Superior Court 
erred in denying his motion for reargument because he had abandoned his Rule 61 
claims in favor of a claim of illegal sentence under Rule 35(a).  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Young’s opening brief that his appeal without merit.  We 
agree and affirm. 
(3) 
A motion for reargument must be filed within five days of the filing of 
the order that the movant seeks to reargue.1  The Superior Court received Young’s 
motion for reargument on August 24, 2016, more than five days (excluding 
intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays)2 after the Superior Court’s 
August 12, 2016 order.  Young’s motion for reargument was therefore untimely.  
We affirm the Superior Court’s denial of the motion for reargument, albeit on 
grounds different from those relied upon by the Superior Court.3      
(4) 
As to Young’s arguments regarding the merits of his motion for 
postconviction relief, or correction of illegal sentence as he now characterizes the 
motion, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider those claims.  Young’s 
                                                 
1 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e) (“A motion for reargument shall be served and filed within 5 days after 
the filing of the Court’s opinion or decision.”); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 57(d) (“In all cases not 
provided for by rule or administrative order, the court shall regulate its practice in accordance 
with the applicable Superior Court civil rule or in any lawful manner not inconsistent with these 
rules or the rules of the Supreme Court.”). 
2 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 6(a) (excluding intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays in 
computation of time period less than eleven days); Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 45(a) (same). 
3 Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that this Court 
may affirm a trial court’s judgment for reasons different than those articulated by the trial court). 
 
3
untimely motion for reargument did not toll the time to appeal the denial of his 
motion for postconviction relief or correction of illegal sentence.4  A timely notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s order denying the motion for postconviction 
relief or correction of illegal sentence should have been filed by September 12, 
2016.5  Young did not file the notice of appeal until October 12, 2016.6      
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
4 McDaniel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 860 A.2d 321, 323 (Del. 2004). 
5 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv). 
6 Even if Young had filed a timely appeal of the August 12, 2016 order, his attacks on his 
sentence are without merit.  Young challenged the manner in which his sentence was imposed 
and failed to show extraordinary circumstances justifying review of his untimely motion for 
sentence correction.  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a) (providing court may correct a sentence imposed 
in an illegal manner within time provided for a reduction of section); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(b) 
(providing that court will not consider motion for reduction of sentence filed more than ninety 
days after imposition of sentence unless movant shows extraordinary circumstances or files 
motion under 11 Del. C. § 4217); Fennell v. State, 2005 WL 1950215, at *1 (Del. July 19, 2005) 
(holding that motion for correction of sentence objecting to enhanced sentence imposed in 
absence of proof of predicate offense sought correction of sentence imposed in an illegal 
manner).