IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM J. WEBB, JR., §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 307, 2016
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 9702013762
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
§
Submitted: August 30, 2016
Decided: October 26, 2016
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 26th day of October 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court
that:
(1) The appellant, William J. Webb, Jr., filed this appeal from a Superior
Court order, dated May 24, 2016, denying his motion for reargument. Webb
sought reargument of a Superior Court order, dated May 10, 2016 and docketed on
May 11, 2016, denying his third motion for postconviction relief under Superior
Court Criminal Rule 61 because Webb had already completed his sentence for the
challenged conviction. In his opening brief on appeal, Webb argues the merits of
his motion for postconviction relief and motion for reargument. The State of
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is
manifest on the face of Webb’s opening brief that his appeal without merit. We
agree and affirm.
(2) A motion for reargument must be filed within five days of the filing of
the order that the movant seeks to reargue.1 The Superior Court received Webb’s
motion for reargument on May 19, 2016, more than five days (excluding
intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays)2 after the May 11, 2016
docketing of the Superior Court’s May 10, 2016 order. Webb’s motion for
reargument was therefore untimely. We affirm the Superior Court’s denial of
Webb’s motion for reargument.
(3) As to Webb’s arguments regarding the merits of his motion for
postconviction relief, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider those claims.
Webb’s untimely motion for reargument did not toll the time to appeal the denial
of his motion for postconviction relief.3 A timely notice of appeal from the
Superior Court’s order denying the motion for postconviction relief should have
1
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e) (“A motion for reargument shall be served and filed within 5 days after
the filing of the Court’s opinion or decision.”); 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.”).
2
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 6(a) (excluding intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays in
computation of time period less than eleven days); Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 45(a) (same).
3
McDaniel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 860 A.2d 321, 323 (Del. 2004).
2
been filed by June 10, 2016.4 Webb did not file the notice of appeal until June 17,
2016.5
(4) We note that Webb has appeared in this Court multiple times in
connection with Cr. ID No. 9702013762.6 We will not continue to invest scarce
judicial resources to address meritless claims. We encourage Webb to be mindful
of Rule 61(j).7
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
4
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv).
5
Even if Webb had filed a timely appeal of the motion for postconviction relief, he lacked
standing under Rule 61 to challenge a conviction for which he had already completed the
sentence. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a) (“This rule governs the procedure on an application by a
person in custody under a sentence of this court seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction
or a sentence of death on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction or on any other ground that
is a sufficient factual and legal basis for a collateral attack upon a criminal conviction or a capital
sentence.”); Short v. State, 2015 WL 4199849, at *1 (Del. July 9, 2015) (rejecting claim that
2002 conviction used to enhance sentence for 2004 conviction gave defendant standing to
challenge the 2002 conviction under Rule 61 even though defendant was no longer in custody on
sentence imposed for 2002 conviction).
6
See, e.g., Webb v. State, 2008 WL 4511829, at *1 (Del. Oct. 8, 2008) (affirming Superior
Court’s denial of Webb’s fourth motion for modification of sentence); Webb v. State, 2007 WL
2310111, at *1 (Del. Aug. 14, 2007) (affirming Superior Court’s denial of Webb’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus); Webb v. State, 2006 WL 3613635, at *1-2 (Del. Dec. 12, 2006)
(affirming Superior Court’s denial of motion for postconviction relief).
7
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(j) (“If a motion is denied, the state may move for an order requiring the
movant to reimburse the state for costs and expenses paid for the movant from public funds.”).
3