IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE )

)

v. ) I.D. Nos. 2006004121

) 2003011608 

BRIAN L. COVERDALE, )

)

Defendant. )

Submitted: April 10, 2023

Decided: April 20, 2023

Upon Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s March 31 Summary 

Dismissals 

DENIED.

 

ORDER

Brian L. Coverdale, pro se, Smyrna, DE. 

Barzillai K. Axelrod, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, 820 N. French St., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State of 

Delaware. 

WHARTON, J.
2

This 18th day of April, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Brian L. 

Coverdale’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s March 31 Summary Dismissals,

1

and 

the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that:

1. On July 15, 2021, Defendant Brian L. Coverdale (“Coverdale”) pled

guilty to charges from two separate cases - Manslaughter, Driving Under the Influence 

of Drugs, and Speeding from one case,

2

and Possession of a Firearm During the 

Commission of a Felony from the other.

3

 On October 29, 2021, the Court imposed 

an aggregate unsuspended Level V sentence of 12 years followed by decreasing levels 

of supervision as well as fines for the Title 21 offenses.4 Coverdale sought a sentence 

modification under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, which the Court denied on 

January 7, 2022.

5

 He did not appeal either his sentence or the denial of his sentence 

modification motion to the Delaware Supreme Court. 

2. On March 24, 2023, Coverdale filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief 

(“PCR Motion”), along with a Motion for Appointment of Counsel.6 The PCR 

Motion alleged a single claim for relief of ineffective assistance of counsel.7 

1 D.I. 27 (ID No. 2006004121); D.I. (ID No. 2003011608).

2 D.I. 15 (ID No. 2006004121).

3 D.I. 11. (ID No. 2003011608).

4 D.I. 19 (ID No. 2006004121) (All succeeding references are to ID NO. 

2006004121).

5 D.I. 20, 21.

6 D.I. 22 (Mot. for Postconviction Relief); D.I. 23 (Mot. for Appointment of 

Counsel).

7 D.I. 22.
3

Specifically, Coverdale alleged his counsel was ineffective for: (1) “failing to 

investigate relevant issues of intent that would have and did influence decision to 

plead guilty;” (2) providing “faulty legal advice that lead [sic] to pleading guilty to 

PFDCF in an unrelated case;” (3) entering faulty and prejudicial stipulation with 

prosecution that lead [sic] to higher minimum mandatory sentence as opposed to the 

alleged drug dealing;” and (4) “failure to timely file motion to modify sentence and 

make aware of other postconviction options after advising that he would make me 

aware.”8

3. The Court summarily dismissed the PCR Motion as time-barred.9 The 

Court explained that it sentenced Coverdale on October 29, 2021, making his 

conviction final on that date and that his PCR Motion was filed on March 24, 2023, 

nearly 5 months too late.10 The Court also denied his request for appointment of 

counsel.11 

4. This Motion to Reconsider asks the Court to revisit those decisions. 

Instead of addressing the reason the Court summarily dismissed his PCR Motion as 

untimely, the Motion to Reconsider only speaks to his counsel’s alleged 

ineffectiveness.

8

Id.

9 State v. Coverdale, 2023 WL 2728777 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 2023).

10 Id. at *2.

11 Id.
4

5. Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e), made applicable by Superior Court 

Criminal Rule 57(d), provides that reargument (or reconsideration) is appropriate 

only if, “the Court has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or the 

Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome 

of the underlying decision.”12 A motion for reargument is not an opportunity for a 

party to rehash arguments already decided by the Court or to present new arguments 

not previously raised.13

6. Coverdale’s PCR Motion was summarily dismissed because it was 

untimely. His Motion for Appointment of Counsel was denied because the PCR 

Motion was summarily dismissed. Nothing in the Motion to Reconsider changes 

those facts. 

THEREFORE, Defendant Brian L. Coverdale’s Motion to Reconsider March 

31 Summary Dismissals is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ferris W. Wharton

Ferris W. Wharton, J.

 

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Investigative Services 

12 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(e); Strong v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2013 WL 1228028, at *1 

(Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 3, 2013) (citing Kennedy v. Invacare, Inc., 2006 WL 488590, 

at *1 (Del. Super Ct. Jan. 31, 2006)). 

13 Strong, 2013 WL 1228028, at *1 (citing Kennedy, 2006 WL 488590, at *1; also 

citing Hennegan v. Cardiology Consultants, P.A., 2008 WL 4152678, at *1 (Del. 

Super. Ct. Sept. 9, 2009)).