Court Opinion

ID: 9949150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 22:03:54.410208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:27:19.689492
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE                    )
                                     )
            v.                       )      I.D. No. 1608014407
                                     )
IDREES MERRITT,                      )
                                     )
            Defendant.               )

                            Submitted: March 6, 2024
                             Decided: March 8, 2024

            Upon Defendant Idrees Merritt’s Motion for Reargument
                                 DENIED.

                                    ORDER

Idrees Merritt, SBI# 00657028, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, 1181
Paddock Road, Smyrna, Delaware 19977, pro se.

Cari Chapman, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
820 N. French St., Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorney for the State of Delaware.

WHARTON, J.
      This 8th day of March 2024, upon consideration of Defendant Idrees Merritt’s

(“Merritt”) Motion for Reargument1 of the Court’s order summarily dismissing his

Request for an Immediate Hearing under 11 Del. C. § 408, which the Court treated

as a motion for postconviction relief, and the record in this matter, it appears to the

Court that:

      1.      On February 28, 2024, this Court summarily dismissed Merritt’s Request

for Immediate Hearing under 11 Del. C. § 408.2 Merritt’s filing “request[ed] an

immediate hearing based upon the provisions of 11 Del. C. § 408.”3 He claimed that:

              (i)    Having accepted the plea under § 408, it was
                     reasonably understood as a stipulation of the plea
                     that Merritt would serve his sentence at Delaware
                     Psychiatric Center. Furthermore…

                     (a) It was the advice and persuasion of counsel that
                     Defendant       would     serve     sentence      at
                     DPC…Therefore

              (ii)   The Plea shall be subjected to withdrawal as the
                     State has not abided the conditions of the plea.4

      2.      The Court interpreted Merritt’s Request as an attempt to withdraw his

guilty but mentally ill plea.5 It applied Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 which

provides that after imposition of sentence, a plea made be set aside only by motion

1
  D.I. 34.
2
  State v. Merritt, 2024 WL 862448 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2024).
3
  D.I. 30.
4
  Id.
5
  Merritt, 2024 WL 862448, at *1.
                                           2
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.6 Further, the Court noted that Rule 61 is

the exclusive remedy for inmates seeking to set aside a judgment of conviction on

any ground that is a sufficient factual and legal basis for a collateral attack on a

criminal conviction.7 Accordingly, the Court treated Merritt’s request as a motion

under Rule 61 and summarily dismissed it as time-barred and successive under Rules

61(i)(1) and (2).8

      3.     Merritt’s reargument motion disputes the Court’s characterization of

his request.9 Merritt characterizes it as simply a request to see if the Court would

review the proceedings leading to his plea.10

      4.     Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e),11 a motion for reargument

will be granted 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 either rehash arguments already decided by the Court

or present new arguments not previously raised.13 Therefore, to succeed on such a

6
  Id.
7
  Id.
8
  Id. at *1-2.
9
   D.I. 34.
10
   Id.
11
   Made applicable by Superior Court Criminal Rule 57.
12
   Janeve Co., Inc. v. City of Wilmington, 2009 WL 2386152, at *1 (Del. Super. July
24, 2009) (quoting Reid v. Hindt, 2008 WL 2943373, at *1 (Del. Super. July 31,
2008)).
13
   See Reid, 2008 WL 2943373, at *1 (citations omitted).

                                         3
motion, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating the existence of newly

discovered evidence, a change in the law, or manifest injustice.14

           5.    The Court has reviewed the Motion for Reargument and finds that it

meets none of the above criteria. In its February 28th Order, the Court did not

“overlook controlling legal principles.” It did not misapprehend the facts, much less

misapprehend facts that would change the outcome of the Court’s decision. Finally,

Merritt does not demonstrate the existence of newly discovered evidence, a change in

the law, or manifest injustice. The Motion for Reargument merely rehashes issues

previously decided by the Court in its February 28th decision. The purpose of the

hearing Merritt requested, as he says, was to review the proceedings leading to his

plea. But, the Court does not review proceedings idly. It does so for a purpose. Here,

that purpose potentially was to “subject the plea to withdrawal.” That type of request

is an attempt to set aside a judgment of conviction and must be made exclusively by

motion under Rule 61.

           THEREFORE, Defendant Idrees Merritt’s Motion for Reargument

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                    /s/ Ferris W. Wharton
                                                     Ferris W. Wharton, J.

oc:        Prothonotary
cc:        Investigative Services

14
     Id.
                                           4