Court Opinion

ID: 9386137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-11 16:03:36.735173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:54.277925
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 AHMAD OTHMAN,                         §
                                       §   No. 377, 2022
       Petitioner Below,               §
       Appellant,                      §   Court Below—Superior Court
                                       §   of the State of Delaware
       v.                              §
                                       §   C.A. No. 22X-00395 (S)
 STATE OF DELAWARE,                    §
                                       §
       Respondent,                     §
       Appellee.

                           Submitted: February 10, 2023
                           Decided:   April 10, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

                                     ORDER

      Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and record on appeal, it appears to

the Court that:

      (1)    The appellant, Ahmad Othman, filed this appeal from a Superior Court

order denying his petition for expungement. After careful consideration of the

parties’ arguments, we affirm the Superior Court’s denial of the petition and the

motion for reargument.

      (2)    In June 2022, Othman filed a petition for expungement of past

convictions for which he had received a pardon. He sought expungement because

he was in school for criminal justice and planned to get a job as an immigration

officer after graduation. The State opposed expungement, contending that the
criminal record should remain in place for completion of a proper law enforcement

background check.

      (3)    On September 16, 2022, the Superior Court denied the petition. The

Superior Court held that Othman had failed to establish manifest injustice as required

for discretionary expungement because a law enforcement agency could still review

his criminal records in considering his application for employment. The Superior

Court also found that Othman was not entitled to discretionary expungement because

his multiple traffic violations showed a continuing refusal to abide by the laws of

Delaware.

      (4)    On September 30, 2022, Othman filed a motion for reargument. He

argued, among other things, that a bank had recently withdrawn a conditional offer

of employment based on his criminal record. The Superior Court denied the motion

for reargument as untimely. The Superior Court also found that although Othman

had shown manifest injustice in his motion for reargument, he still had numerous

traffic violations showing a lack of respect for the laws of Delaware. This appeal

followed.

      (5)    On appeal, Othman argues that he established manifest injustice in his

motion for reargument and that his traffic violations should not preclude

expungement of his criminal record. This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on

                                          2
expungement for abuse of discretion.1 A trial court’s discretionary “rulings will not

be disturbed unless it clearly appears that the rulings were based on unreasonable or

capricious grounds.”2

       (6)     Under Section 4375, Othman could seek discretionary expungement

of records of crimes for which he was pardoned. He had the burden of alleging

specific facts showing that the continued existence and possible dissemination of

information relating to his arrest or conviction caused or could cause circumstances

constituting a manifest injustice to him.3 In his petition, Othman tried to satisfy this

burden by alleging that his criminal record could interfere with his plans to become

an immigration officer.

       (7)    As the Superior Court recognized, a law enforcement agency would still

be able to review Othman’s expunged criminal records in considering his application

for employment. Section 4376 provides:

       Except for disclosure to law-enforcement officers acting in the lawful
       performance of their duties in investigating criminal activity or for the
       purpose of an employment application as an employee of a law-
       enforcement agency, it is unlawful for any person having or acquiring
       access to an expunged court or law-enforcement agency record to open
       or review it or to disclose to another person any information from it
       without an order from the court which ordered the record expunged.4

1
  Faulkner v. State, 2017 WL 6015764, at *2 (Del Dec. 4, 2017); Hechinger v. State, 1998 WL
138932, at *2 (Del. Feb. 27, 1998).
2
  Hechinger, 1998 WL 137932, at *2.
3
  11 Del. C. § 4374(f).
4
  11 Del. C. § 4376(a)(1).
                                            3
The Superior Court did not err therefore in finding that Othman’s petition failed to

establish manifest injustice and denying the petition.

       (8)     Nor did the Superior Court err in denying Othman’s motion for

reargument. A motion for reargument must filed within five days of the Superior

Court order for which reargument is sought.5 The Superior Court issued the denial

of Othman’s petition on September 16, 2022, making a timely motion for reargument

due by September 23, 2022. Othman filed his motion for reargument on September

30, 2022. Even if the motion had been timely, the purpose of a motion for

reargument is to ask the trial court to reconsider whether it overlooked an applicable

legal principle or misapprehended the law or facts, not to raise new facts and

arguments.6

       (9)     Because the Superior Court did not err in finding that Othman’s petition

for expungement failed to establish manifest injustice and that his motion for

reargument was untimely, we do not address the Superior Court’s ruling that Othman

showed manifest injustice in his motion for reargument but was not entitled to

expungement based on his traffic violations.7

5
  Del. Super. C.t Civ. R. 59(e).
6
  Dickens v. Coupe, 2019 WL 1220717, at *2 (Del. Mar. 13, 2019).
7
  11 Del. C. § 4374(f) (providing that the trial court shall order expungement if it finds manifest
injustice).
                                                4
     NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

                               BY THE COURT:

                               /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
                                    Chief Justice

                                 5