Court Opinion

ID: 9398184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 16:05:07.081879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.503588
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE                    )
                                     )
      v.                             )     I.D. No.: 2109003628
                                     )
DAVAUN COLLINS                       )

                            Submitted: May 19, 2023
                            Decided: May 26, 2023

                                    ORDER

               Upon Consideration of State’s Motion to Reargue

                                   DENIED.

Stephen Welch, Jr., Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Dover, Delaware, for the
State of Delaware.

Stephanie Blaisdell, Esquire, Dover, Delaware, for Defendant Davaun Collins.

GREEN-STREETT, J.
       This 26th day of May, 2023, upon consideration of the Motion to Reargue

brought by the State of Delaware (“State”), it appears to the Court that:

    1. On May 10, 2023, the Court issued an oral bench decision in this case granting

       Defendant Davaun Collins’s Motion to Suppress. The State now moves for

       reargument of the Court’s decision. After careful review of the parties’

       written submissions and arguments, the Motion must be DENIED.

    2. Here, the State submits the Court misunderstands both the applicable law and

       attendant background circumstances behind the search of Mr. Collins and the

       vehicle he occupied. The State contends that probable cause existed to search

       Mr. Collins and the entirety of his vehicle – including the trunk.

    3. Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) (made applicable to criminal cases pursuant

       to Superior Court Criminal Rule 57(d))1 permits the Court to reconsider its

       findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgments.2 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

1
 See Haskins v. State, 945 A.2d 594 (Del. 2008) (TABLE); see also State v. Zachary, 2013 WL
5783388, at *1 n.1 (Del. Super. Sept. 23, 2013).
2
  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 57(d) (“In all cases not provided for by rule or administrative order, the court
shall regulate its practice in accordance 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). See Bd.
of Managers of the Del. Crim. Just. Info. Sys. v. Gannett Co., 2003 WL 1579170, at *1 (Del. Super.
Jan. 17, 2003), aff’d in part, 840 A.2d 1232 (Del. 2003).
       would have affected the outcome of the underlying decision.3 It is equally

       well-settled that a motion for reargument is not a device for rehashing

       arguments already presented or for raising new arguments.4

    4. The Court did not overlook a controlling precedent or legal principle, or

       misapprehend the law or facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the

       decision.

    5. THEREFORE, the State’s Motion is DENIED.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
 See State v. Brown, 2019 WL 3249402, at *2 (Del. Super. July 18, 2019) (setting forth the bases
for reargument of a decision in a criminal matter).
4
 State v. Abel, 2011 WL 5925284, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 28, 2011) (“It is well settled that a
motion for reargument is not an opportunity for a party to revisit arguments already decided by the
Court or to present new arguments not previously raised.”).