Submitted: December 17, 2013
Louis B. Ferrara, Esquire Ferrara & Haley, Attorney for Appellant
Daniel B. McBride, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice, Attorney for Appellee
Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 57(d) and Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e), Neel Dattanie ("Appellant") moves for reargument of the Court's November 20, 2013 decision affirming his conviction in the Court of Common Pleas for Driving Under the Influence in violation of 21 Del. C. § 4177(a).
II. THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
Appellant's contentions in his Motion for Reargument are set forth below in toto:
1. On November 20, 2013, the Honorable Judge Richard R. Cooch issued an opinion affirming [Appellant's] Court of Common Pleas conviction for driving under the influence.
2. In his appeal and in oral argument, [Appellant] argued that the Trial Judge improperly advocated on behalf of the State throughout the entire course of the trial. It should be noted that a significant amount of time was spent discussing this point during oral argument on August 21, 2013.
3. The November 20th opinion did not mention this argument at all and it appears that the Court failed to consider [Appellant's] most significant argument in making its decision.
4. As a result, [Appellant] requests re-argument so that the Court may properly consider [Appellant's] position.
The State ("Appellee") contends that the Motion should be denied because "[t]he only colorable issue raised by [Appellant] regarding improper advocacy by the trial judge involved the reference to the NHTSA manual, " an issue that was "fully addressed by the Court." "Excluding this argument, [Appellant's] claim that the trial judge improperly advocated on behalf of the State is completely unfounded. [Appellant] points to no specific instances, statements, or conduct in support of his contention [that does not relate to the NHTSA manual]." Appellee further argues "[i]t should be noted that a trial judge is not improperly ...