Opinion
ID No. 1211016583 ID No. 1304009788 ID No. 1307025699 ID No. 1211008008 ID No. 1205008276 ID No. 1110009338 ID No. 1304022461 ID No. 1204012409 ID No. 1306008038 ID No. 1012001879 ID No. 0912005873 ID No. 1204018496 ID No. 1212012552 ID No. 1304014873 ID No. 1311015254 ID No. 1010009425 ID No. 1202012547 ID No. 1205019774A ID No. 1306018495 ID No. 0912010393 ID No. 1211007648 ID No. 1110018244 ID No. 1210028521 ID No. 1305018534 ID No. 1008014466 ID No. 1311003205 ID No. 1304014924 ID No. 1310003660 ID No. 1204006263 ID No. 1007025439 ID No. 1303011652 ID No. 0810005948 ID No. 1303009650 ID No. 0912001839 ID No. 1208006617 ID No. 1304023378 ID No. 1103018539 ID No. 1305012566 ID No. 1109010352 ID No. 1212012158 ID No. 1305024514 ID No. 1309011710 ID No. 1210000641 ID No. 1306000151 ID No. 1211017948 ID No. 1208012411 ID No. 1303014531 ID No. 0905018717 ID No. 1306024965 ID No. 1003022526 ID No. 1209014758 ID No. 1205007336 ID No. 1304020013 ID No. 1307023483 ID No. 1212013114 ID No. 1012018727 ID No. 1302015909 ID No. 1205012091 ID No. 1111006658 ID No. 1303023438 ID No. 1302018753 ID No. 0909012957 ID No. 1309013276 ID No. 0911004091 ID No. 1310001534 ID No. 1309013336 ID No. 1212013498 ID No. 1312012266
06-17-2015
ORDER
Upon consideration of the captioned cases' Motion for Reargument, the State's opposition and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that: 1. On April 20, 2015, the Court entered judgment against the captioned cases, denying their individual Motion(s) for Postconviction Relief. The captioned cases timely filed this motion thereafter. 2. A motion for reargument seeks reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgments of law. A motion for reargument will be denied unless the moving party has demonstrated that the Court has "overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision." Specifically, "[a] motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the Court, nor will the Court consider new arguments that the movant could have previously raised." 3. With the exception of the argument that the Court reconsider its decision in the interest of justice in light of newly discovered evidence, the issues raised in the captioned cases' Motion for Reargument were considered by the Court in making its original decision. Like the recent decision in Carrero v. State, there is no evidence that the drugs in these cases were compromised. Similar to Carrero and Brown, in each of these cases, a knowing, intelligent and voluntary guilty plea waived any right to test the chain of custody of the drug evidence. 4. As to the captioned cases' newly discovered evidence argument, the alleged wrongdoing is far less egregious than the alleged conduct of the original bad actors-which this Court's April 20, 2015 Order has already explained has no bearing on the binding effect of the captioned cases' knowing and voluntary guilty pleas. Similar to the conduct of the original bad actors, the newly discovered bad acts do not warrant a finding of actual or presumptive involuntariness of the captioned cases' guilty pleas. Unless, of course, there is evidence of a different factual scenario like the one suggested in Brown v. State,
Defense counsel chose 68 out of the117 originally subject to this Order to seek reargument.
Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969).
First Bank of Delaware, Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 2013 WL 6407603 at *1 (Del. Super. Dec. 4, 2013).
Id.
Carrero v. State, 2015 WL 3367940 (Del. May 21, 2015).
Id.
Brown v. State, 108 A.3d 1201 (Del. 2015).
The captioned cases point to a chemist at the Division of Forensic Science who has worked on numerous cases at the OCME, has- since October 2014- "received three corrective action reports due to missing evidence, mishandling of evidence and discrepancies in reported evidence."
where a defendant entered a reluctant, but fully informed, no contest or guilty plea to lesser charges with no prison sentence to avoid the risk of a lengthy prison sentence on more serious charges, while proclaiming his factual innocence and expressing incredulity that the substance he claimed was legal had tested to be illegal narcotics, a later revelation that evidence planting had occurred in the relevant police departmentThe captioned cases' newly discovered evidence fails to put forth any such evidence. Accordingly, this Court's original Order controls. 5. Since the captioned cases' have not met the standard for granting a motion for reargument, the motion is DENIED.
and that the defendant had been one of the victims of that misconduct,...
Brown, 108 A.3d at 1202. --------
/s/ William L. Witham, Jr.
Hon. William L. Witham, Jr.
Resident Judge
Dated: June 17, 2015 WLW/dmh
oc: Prothonotary
cc: Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Esquire
Kathleen M. Jennings, Esquire
Stephen R. Welch, Jr., Esquire
J. Brendan O'Neill, Esquire
Elliot Margules, Esquire
Nicole M. Walker, Esquire
William T. Deely, Esquire