Case Title: Othman v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 377, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-04-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AHMAD OTHMAN, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 377, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. 22X-00395 (S) 
§                     
§                     
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   February 10, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 10, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and record on appeal, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Ahmad Othman, filed this appeal from a Superior Court 
order denying his petition for expungement.  After careful consideration of the 
parties’ arguments, we affirm the Superior Court’s denial of the petition and the 
motion for reargument. 
(2) 
In June 2022, Othman filed a petition for expungement of past 
convictions for which he had received a pardon.  He sought expungement because 
he was in school for criminal justice and planned to get a job as an immigration 
officer after graduation.  The State opposed expungement, contending that the 
2 
 
criminal record should remain in place for completion of a proper law enforcement 
background check.   
(3) 
On September 16, 2022, the Superior Court denied the petition.  The 
Superior Court held that Othman had failed to establish manifest injustice as required 
for discretionary expungement because a law enforcement agency could still review 
his criminal records in considering his application for employment.  The Superior 
Court also found that Othman was not entitled to discretionary expungement because 
his multiple traffic violations showed a continuing refusal to abide by the laws of 
Delaware. 
(4) 
On September 30, 2022, Othman filed a motion for reargument.  He 
argued, among other things, that a bank had recently withdrawn a conditional offer 
of employment based on his criminal record.  The Superior Court denied the motion 
for reargument as untimely.  The Superior Court also found that although Othman 
had shown manifest injustice in his motion for reargument, he still had numerous 
traffic violations showing a lack of respect for the laws of Delaware.  This appeal 
followed. 
(5) 
On appeal, Othman argues that he established manifest injustice in his 
motion for reargument and that his traffic violations should not preclude 
expungement of his criminal record.  This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on 
3 
 
expungement for abuse of discretion.1  A trial court’s discretionary “rulings will not 
be disturbed unless it clearly appears that the rulings were based on unreasonable or 
capricious grounds.”2   
(6) 
  Under Section 4375, Othman could seek discretionary expungement 
of records of crimes for which he was pardoned.  He had the burden of alleging 
specific facts showing that the continued existence and possible dissemination of 
information relating to his arrest or conviction caused or could cause circumstances 
constituting a manifest injustice to him.3   In his petition, Othman tried to satisfy this 
burden by alleging that his criminal record could interfere with his plans to become 
an immigration officer. 
(7) 
As the Superior Court recognized, a law enforcement agency would still 
be able to review Othman’s expunged criminal records in considering his application 
for employment.  Section 4376 provides: 
Except for disclosure to law-enforcement officers acting in the lawful 
performance of their duties in investigating criminal activity or for the 
purpose of an employment application as an employee of a law-
enforcement agency, it is unlawful for any person having or acquiring 
access to an expunged court or law-enforcement agency record to open 
or review it or to disclose to another person any information from it 
without an order from the court which ordered the record expunged.4 
 
 
1 Faulkner v. State, 2017 WL 6015764, at *2 (Del Dec. 4, 2017); Hechinger v. State, 1998 WL 
138932, at *2 (Del. Feb. 27, 1998).  
2 Hechinger, 1998 WL 137932, at *2. 
3 11 Del. C. § 4374(f).   
4 11 Del. C. § 4376(a)(1). 
4 
 
The Superior Court did not err therefore in finding that Othman’s petition failed to 
establish manifest injustice and denying the petition.   
(8) 
Nor did the Superior Court err in denying Othman’s motion for 
reargument.  A motion for reargument must filed within five days of the Superior 
Court order for which reargument is sought.5  The Superior Court issued the denial 
of Othman’s petition on September 16, 2022, making a timely motion for reargument 
due by September 23, 2022.  Othman filed his motion for reargument on September 
30, 2022.  Even if the motion had been timely, the purpose of a motion for 
reargument is to ask the trial court to reconsider whether it overlooked an applicable 
legal principle or misapprehended the law or facts, not to raise new facts and 
arguments.6 
(9) 
Because the Superior Court did not err in finding that Othman’s petition 
for expungement failed to establish manifest injustice and that his motion for 
reargument was untimely, we do not address the Superior Court’s ruling that Othman 
showed manifest injustice in his motion for reargument but was not entitled to 
expungement based on his traffic violations.7 
 
 
 
5 Del. Super. C.t Civ. R. 59(e). 
6 Dickens v. Coupe, 2019 WL 1220717, at *2 (Del. Mar. 13, 2019). 
7 11 Del. C. § 4374(f) (providing that the trial court shall order expungement if it finds manifest 
injustice). 
5 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Chief Justice