State of Delaware v. Collins ( 2023 )

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.”).