IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE
, ) )

v. ) ID. No. 1703022008 ) RICHARD C. WHITE, ) Defendant . )

Submitted: August 8, 2022 Decided: September 7 , 2022

ORDER

Upon Defendant Richard C. White ’s Motion for Reargument

o f his Motion for Postconviction Relief
, DENIED

.

This 7th day of September
, 20 22 , upon consideration of the Defendant

Richard C. White ’s Motion for Reargument o f his Motion for Postconviction

Relief (D.I. 62 ), the State’s response thereto (D.I. 64 ) , and the record in this
matter, it appears to the Court that:

(1) In September of 2017, a grand jury indicted Mr. White for 11
counts of Rape in the Second Degree, one count of Continuous Sexual Abuse
of Child, one count of Dangerous Crime Against a Child, five counts of Sexual- 2

-

Exploitation of a Child, one count of Dealing in Child Pornography, and six

counts of Posse ssion of Child Pornography. 1

(2) Mr. White pleaded guilty to a single count of Rape in the Second

Degree. 2 He did so in exchange for dismissal of all his remaining charges and
the State’s favorable sentencing recommendation. 3

(3) Following a presentence inve stigation, Mr. White was sentenced

to serve a natural life term in prison. 4

(4) Mr. White docketed a timely direct appeal ; his conviction and

sentence were affirmed. 5

(5) Mr. White then filed a timely motion for postconviction relief
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. In that motion , Mr. White’s single
claim was that his plea colloquy was somehow inadequate and, therefore, his
guilty plea cannot stand. 6 Time and again during the litigation of his
postconviction motion, Mr. White insisted his claim w as that “ a ‘structural

1 Indictment, State v. Richard C. White , ID No. 1703022008 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 5, 201 7 ) (D.I. 6).

2 Plea Agreement and TIS Guilty Plea Form, State v. Richard C. White , ID No. 1703022008 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 16, 2018) (D.I. 15).

3 Id.

4 Sentencing Order, State v. Richard C. White , ID No. 1703022008 (Del. Super. Ct. May 18, 2018) (D.I. 21).

5 White v. State , 2018 WL 6167326 , at *3 (Del. Nov. 21, 2018).

6 State v. White , 278 A.3d 680, 684 (Del. Super. Ct. 2022).- 3

-

error’ invalidat[ed] his plea” 7

— not that he suffered ineffective assistance of

counsel. 8 After fully consider ing Mr. White’s arguments, the Court denied
his motion finding that he had uncovered only a harmless omission from his
plea colloquy and that postconviction relief was not warranted

. 9

(6) Mr. White then filed th is present motion to reargue that seems to
suggest the Court: (a) should not have taken him at his word when he said he
was not bringing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; and ( b ) should
have afforded greater weight to his claim that, due to lack of knowledge, he
could not have raised his specific Rule 11 complain t earlier. 10

(7) Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) (made applicable to criminal
cases pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 57(d)) 11 permits the Court to
reconsider its findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgments. 12 But a ny

7 Id.

8 Id. at 685.

9 Id. at 691

- 94.

10 Mot

. for Reargument, at 2

- 3 (D.I. 62).

11 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 57 ( d ) (“In all cases not provided for by rule or administrative order, the court shall regulate its practice in accordan ce with the applicable Superior Court civil rule or in any lawful manner not inconsistent with these rules or the rules of the Supreme Court.”); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e) (providing a vehicle for motions for reargument of the Court’s decisions).

12 Bd. of Managers of the Del

. Crim

. Just

. Info. Sys. v. Gannett Co. , 2003 WL 1579170, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 17, 2003), aff’d in part , 840 A.2d 1232 (Del. 2003).- 4

-

request for such reconsideration must be timely. 13 Here, a motion for

re argument had to be served and filed within five days of the Court’s July 6
,
2022 opinion and order denying postconviction relief

. 14 Mr. White thus had

until Wednesd ay, July 13 , 20 22
, to serve and docket a ny motion for

reargument. 15 Mr. White ’s present motion was docketed on July 18 , 20 22
, and was, therefore, untimely. 16 Under settled Delaware law, the Court ha s no
authority to extend the time in which a party must move for reargument. 17

And because Mr. White ’s reargument motion is untimely, the Court ha s no
jurisdiction to consider it. 18 But even if Mr. White’s motion was timely under

Rule 59(e), it would not warrant the relief he seeks.

(8) It is well

- settled that Rule 59(e) relief is appropriate only if the
Court overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principle, or the Court
misapprehended the law or facts such that it would have affected th e outcome

13 Samuel v. State , 2010 WL 3245109, at *1 (Del. Aug. 17, 2010) (“ A timely

- filed motion for reargument is ‘the proper device for seeking reconsideration’ of a trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.”) (quoting Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell , 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969)).

14 Haskins v. State , 2008 WL 644200 , at *1 (Del. March 11, 2008).

15 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 45(a) (excluding Saturdays, Sund ays, and legal holidays).

16 See Colon v. State , 2008 WL 5533892 , at *1 (Del. Nov. 13, 2008) ( affirming the Superior Court’s decision that a “ motion for reargument, filed six days after the filing of the order sought to be reargued, was untimely”).

17 Id. (citing Super. Ct. Civ. R. 6(b)); Fisher v. Biggs , 284 A.2d 117, 118 (Del. 1971).

18 Boyer v. State , 2007 WL 452300 , at *1 (Del. Feb. 13, 2007) (citing Preform Bldg. Components, Inc. v. Edwards , 280 A.2d 697, 698 (Del. 1971)).- 5

-

of the underlying decision. 19 I t is equally well

- settled that a motion for

reargument is not a device for rehashing argument s already presented or for
raising new arguments. 20 No doubt then, such motion cannot be used to revisit
a party’s decision to expressly forgo a specific claim. 21 Yet, t hat is precisely

what Mr. White attempts here.

(9) Citing his pro se status on postconviction, Mr. White suggests

that the Court was mistaken to accept his unwavering rejection of any notion
that he wished to argue ineffective assistance of counsel. When doing so, Mr.

White cites to Wilson v. State

. 22 That case does explain that this Court should
“consider the true substance of [a pa rty’s] claim” to discern the proper
procedural mechanism applicable in a given instance

— in that case Rule 35

or Rule 61. 23 But Wilson hardly stands for the proposition that the Court can

19 See State v. Brown , 2019 WL 3249402, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. July 1 8 , 2019) (setting forth the bases for reargument of a decision in a criminal matter).

20 State v. Abel , 2011 WL 5925284, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 28, 2011) (“It is well settled that a motion for rearg ument is not an opportunity for a party to revisit arguments already decided by the Court or to present new arguments not previously raised .”) (citation omitted)

. 21 See Cummings v. Jimmy’s Grille, Inc. , 2000 WL 1211167, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 9, 20 00) (“ A Motion for Reargument is not a device for raising new arguments or stringing out the length of time for making an argument. ” ) (citation omitted)

. 22 2006 WL 1291369 (Del. May 9, 2006).

23 Id. at *1 n.3

.- 6

-

re

- write the substance of one’s claim, much less ignore any movant’s specific

articulation of his substantive claim or express rejection of another.
(10) As to Mr. White’s attempt to revisit the Court’s application of the
procedural default bar, the Court noted in its opinion: “ i t has previously been
held that lack of knowledge as to one’s rights does not constitute ‘ cause’ under
61(i)(3).” 24 Thus, there was no misapprehension of controlling Rule 61 law

here.

(11) At bottom, no matter whether Mr. White could now apply an

ineffective

- assistance gloss to his motion or somehow reconstitute his
procedural arguments, the substance of his complaint remains the same.

Mr. White has contended all along that because a specific caution wa s missing
from his plea colloquy, his guilty plea must be stricken and he must be allowed

to start anew. 25 The Court fully considered the merits of that substantive

claim

. 26 The Court found that Mr. White had not demonstrated that he had

entere d his plea under some misapprehension that he could withdraw his plea
if the sentencing judge did not follow the State’s recommendation

. 27

24 State v. White , 278 A.3d 680, 68 8 (Del. Super. Ct. 2022) ( cleaned up ).

25 Id. at 684, 687.

26 Id. at 692

- 93.

27 Id.- 7

-

Moreover, Mr. White had not demonstrated that he would not have entered
his plea had the Court included the missing Rule 11(e)(2) advisory. 28 Wh en

now asking for reconsideration, Mr. White wholly ignores these findings that

are fatal to his Rule 61 (and Rule 11) claim.

(12) Consequently, Mr. White’s u ntimely motion for reargument of the

Court’s earlier postconviction decision must be DENIED ; the Court has no
jurisdiction to consider it
, 29 it is improperly based
, 30 and his underlying claim

without merit.

SO ORDERED this 7 th day of September, 20 22

.
/s/ Paul R. Wallace Paul R. Wallace, Judge
Original to Prothonotary

cc: Richard C. White, pro se Diana A. Dunn, Deputy Attorney General

28 Id.

29 Brooks v. State , 2008 WL 5250269, at *1 (Del. Dec. 18, 2008) (“ It is well

- settled that the Superior Court has no jurisdiction to consider an untimely motion for reargument.”).

30 St rong v. Dunning , 2013 WL 5784426 , at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 4, 2013) (“Parties are barred from raising new arguments in a motion for reargument. When a movant advances a new argument that was not previously asserted, and the movant had a prior opportunity to make that argument before the Cou rt, that argument is inappropriate and the Court will not consider its merits. Allowing otherwise would not promote efficient use of judicial resources and would result in prejudice to the non

- moving party.”) ( citation omitted ).