concluding that this Court, "in fact, had no jurisdiction to consider" substance of an untimely motion for reargument
Summary of this case from State v. WrightNo. 629, 2006.
February 13, 2007.
Appeal from the Superior (Sussex) Cr 0206001272.
Decisions Without Published Opinions AFFIRMED.
concluding that this Court, "in fact, had no jurisdiction to consider" substance of an untimely motion for reargument
Summary of this case from State v. Wrightconcluding that this Court, "in fact, had no jurisdiction to consider" substance of an untimely motion for reargument (citing Preform Building Components, Inc. v. Edwards, 280 A.2d 697, 698 (Del. 1971))
Summary of this case from State v. Williamsconcluding that this Court, "in fact, had no jurisdiction to consider" substance of an untimely motion for reargument
Summary of this case from State v. Brownrecognizing that motion for reargument filed more than five days after filing of denial of motion for sentence modification was untimely
Summary of this case from Binaird v. Staterecognizing that motion for reargument filed more than five days after filing of denial of motion for sentence modification was untimely
Summary of this case from Binaird v. StateFull title:Boyer v. State
Court:Supreme Court of Delaware
Date published: Feb 13, 2007
Colon, 2008 WL 5533892, at *1 (citing Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 6(b)); Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701,…
State v. WilliamsBecause Mr. Williams's motion for reargument was untimely, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider it.See…