State v. Rivera ( 2022 )

SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
MEGHAN A. ADAMS LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
JUDGE 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 10400
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
(302) 255-0634
August 3, 2022
RE: State v. Joshua Rivera
ID No. 1908004392
Dear Counsel:
The Court has reviewed Defendant Joshua Rivera’s (“Rivera”) Motion for
Reargument and the State’s opposition thereto. For the reasons stated herein, the
Motion for Reargument is DENIED.
The Superior Court Criminal rules do not contain a specific rule governing
motions for reargument.1 In such circumstances, Superior Court Criminal Rule
57(d) provides that the Court “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.”2 Therefore, Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e)
governs Rivera’s Motion for Reargument.
The moving party bears a heavy burden on a motion for reargument. A motion
for reargument is not a device for raising new arguments, nor is it intended to rehash
1
State v. Wright, 2022 WL 1013311, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 9, 2022).
2
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. Rule 57(d).
the arguments already decided by the Court. The only issue on a motion for
reargument under Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) “is whether the Court overlooked
something that would have changed its earlier decision.”3 The Motion for
Reargument will be denied “unless the Court has overlooked a controlling precedent
or legal principles, or unless the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as
would affect the outcome of the decision.”4
Rivera, in his Motion for Reargument, restates the same arguments he asserted
in his Motion for Correction of Sentence. The Court has already addressed these
arguments in its May 9, 2022 Memorandum Opinion and Order and will not re-state
its rulings here. Rather than comply with the standards under Superior Court Civil
Rule 59(e), Rivera’s Motion for Reargument instead takes issue with the Court’s
decision denying his Motion for Modification. The proper venue for such
disagreement with the Court’s ruling is an appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware
– not a motion for reargument.5
3
Ferko v. McLaughlin, 1999 WL 167827, at *1 (Del. Super. Feb. 19, 1999)
(citing McElroy v. Shell Petroleum, Inc., 1992 WL 397468 (Del. Super. Nov. 24,
1992)).
4
Eisenmann Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 2000 WL 303310, at *1 (Del.
Super. Feb. 24, 2000) (citing Interim Health Care v. Fournier, 1994 WL 148266, at
*2 (Del. Ch. Mar. 25, 1994)).
5
See Bowen v. E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc., 879 A.2d 920, 921 (Del.
2005) (“The purpose of all Rule 59 motions is to provide the trial court with an
opportunity to reconsider a matter and to correct any alleged legal or factual errors
prior to an appeal.”); see also State v. Simpson, 2017 WL 3605358, at *1 (Del. Super.
Aug. 21, 2017) (citing Kennedy v. InvacareCorp., 2006 WL 488590, at *1 (Del.
2
Rivera has not presented the Court with any overlooked controlling precedent
or legal principles that would change the Court’s decision, nor has Rivera shown
that the Court misapprehended facts in a material way. Rivera’s disagreement with
the Court’s decision is not grounds for granting reargument. Therefore, the Court
will deny Rivera’s Motion for Reargument. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Super. Jan. 31, 2006); (Plummer v. Sherman, 2004 WL 63414, at *2 (Del. Super.
Jan. 14, 2004)) (“[A] motion for reargument is not…intended to rehash the
arguments already decided by the court. Such tactics frustrate the interests of
judicial efficiency and the orderly process of reaching finality on the issues.”); see
also Del. Const. art. IV, § 11.
3