Court Opinion

ID: 9376524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 21:03:24.488138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:07.443015
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE                      )
                                       )
      v.                               )
                                       )     ID No. 2201004239
CLARENCE CARLISLE,                     )
Defendant.                             )

                           Submitted: February 27, 2023
                             Decided: March 2, 2023

                                      ORDER

            Upon Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration – DENIED.

      This 2nd day of March, 2023, having considered Defendant’s Motion for a

Reconsideration, the State’s Response and the record in this matter; it appears to

the Court that:

      1.     Defendant Clarence Carlisle (hereinafter “Defendant”) was initially

indicted in Case No. 2202012020 on April 1, 2022, and then re-indicted on August

15, 2022, to join Case Nos. 2202012020 and 2201004239. The charges in Case

2201004239 were originally pending in Family Court, but ultimately combined with

Case 2202012020, which partially forms the basis for Count I of the Indictment,
Stalking, in violation of Title 11, Section 1323 of the Delaware Code.1 Defendant

is charged with nineteen (19) other misdemeanor offenses, comprising of one count

each   of    Offensive     Touching,     Malicious     Interference     With     Emergency

Communications, Unlawful Imprisonment Second Degree, Resisting Arrest and

fourteen (14) Counts of Criminal Contempt of a Domestic Violence Protective

Order.2

       2.     Defendant’s motion to proceed pro se was granted early on the

prosecution of these cases, and acting as his own counsel, Defendant filed numerous

motions.3 Relevant to the instant motion, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on

July, 2022. 4 The State responded on August 5, 2022.5

       3.     On August 8, 2022, Defendant’s motions were heard and denied by this

Court. At that time, the Court noted that Defendant was scheduled for re-indictment

on August 15, 2022.6

       4.     Following the new indictment, Defendant filed the instant Motion for

Reconsideration in Case No. 2201004239.7 Despite this being filed under the new

1
       See Indictment, State v. Clarence Carlisle, ID No. 2202012020 (D.I. 1, 29); State v.
       Clarence Carlisle, ID No. 2201004239 (D.I.1).
2
       Id.
3
       D.I. 11 (ID No. 2202012020).
4
       D.I. 13 (ID No. 2202012020).
5
       D.I. 21 (ID No. 2202012020).
6
       D.I. 22-24 (ID No. 2202012020).
7
       D.I. 9 (ID No. 2201004239). Following the filing of this and other motions, an office
       conference was held where Defendant was permitted to have standby counsel appointed
       (D.I. 37). The Court purposefully delayed ruling on the pending motions until standby
case number, Defendant’s motion references exclusively the denial of the Motion to

Suppress filed in Case No. 2202012020.8

      5.     While there is no specific Superior Court procedural rule governing

motions for reargument, Superior Court Criminal Rule 57(d) calls for the application

of the Civil Rules of Procedure when none is stated within the Criminal Rules.

Therefore, Superior Court Civil Rule of Procedure 59(e) controls here.9

      6.     Pursuant to Rule 59(e), a motion for regarument “…shall be served and

filed within 5 days after the filing of the Court’s opinion or decision. The motion

shall briefly and distinctly state the grounds therefor…The Court will determine

from the motion and answer whether reargument will be granted.”10

      7.     Because the initial Motion to Dismiss was denied on August 8, 2022,

any such motion for reargument must have been filed no later than August 15,

2022.11 Defendant filed the instant motion on July 11, 2023. He is untimely and the

Superior Court has no authority to extend the time to file a motion for

reconsideration.12 As such, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear this motion.13

      counsel had an opportunity to review same and at that time February 27, 2023, was the
      deadline set for the State’s response for this and all of Defendant’s other motions. D.I. 42
      (ID No. 2202012020).
8
      Id.
9
      Super. Ct. Crim. R. 57(d); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e).
10
      Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e).
11
      See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 57(d); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 6(a).
12
      Colon v. State, 926 A.2d 216 (TABLE), 2008 WL 5533892 (Del. Nov. 13, 2008).
13
      Id.; see also State v. Williams, 2021 WL 5028365 *2 (Del. Super. Oct. 29, 2021).
      8.    Accordingly, Defendant may not proceed with argument on the Motion

for Reconsideration.

      IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion for Reargument is

DENIED. This matter will proceed to argument on Defendant’s remaining

motions as scheduled on March 3, 2023.

                                     ________________________________
                                     Danielle J. Brennan, Judge

Original to Prothonotary

Cc:   Jenna Milecki, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General
      Colleen Durkin, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General
      Olivia Phillips, Esquire, Office of Defense Service (Standby Counsel)
      Clarence Carlisle, pro se (SBI No. 00975301)