Hartmann v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 31, 2025
• Docket: 200, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DETLEF HARTMANN, § § No. 200, 2025 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 9912000027 (K) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: June 25, 2025 Decided: July 31, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to

affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

(1) Detlef Hartmann appeals the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for

reargument of the court’s denial of various motions, including several motions to

restrict access to his medical records. The State of Delaware has moved to affirm

the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Hartmann’s

opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) In 2001, Hartmann pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree

unlawful sexual intercourse and two counts of second-degree unlawful sexual

contact. The Superior Court immediately sentenced Hartmann to an aggregate of nineteen years of incarceration, suspended after ten years followed by decreasing

levels of supervision. In 2012, the Superior Court found that Hartmann had violated

the terms of his probation and resentenced him. Hartmann appealed, and we

affirmed.1 In 2019, the Superior Court again found that Hartmann had violated the

terms of his probation and resentenced him. Hartmann appealed, and we affirmed.2

(3) In December 2019, Hartmann filed a motion to seal his health records.

The Superior Court denied the motion as unfounded. In February 2023, Hartmann

filed a motion to strike his health information from the record. The Superior Court

also denied this motion as unfounded.

(4) In March 2025, Hartmann filed six motions—one motion for

appointment of counsel, one motion for a no-contact order, and four motions asking

the court to restrict access to his health records. On April 1, 2025, the court denied

the motions, finding the motions to be “largely unintelligible” and noting that

Hartmann had “failed to cite to [sic] any rule of criminal procedure … that would

provide a basis for the filings.”3 On April 28, 2025, Hartmann filed a motion for

reargument. On April 29, 2025, the Superior Court denied the motion as untimely

filed.4 On May 6, 2025, Hartmann filed a notice of appeal in this Court.

1 Hartmann v. State, 2013 WL 434052 (Del. Feb. 4, 2013). 2 Hartmann v. State, 2019 WL 6813986 (Del. Dec. 12, 2019). 3 Mot. to Affirm, Ex. D at 31. 4 State v. Hartmann, 2025 WL 1250864 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 29, 2025).

2 (5) A motion for reargument must be filed and served within five days

(excluding intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays)5 of the court’s

decision6—here, on or before April 8, 2025. We therefore affirm the Superior

Court’s denial of Hartmann’s motion for reargument, which was filed twenty days

too late. To the extent that Hartmann argues in his opening brief that the Superior

Court committed reversible error in its April 1 order denying Hartmann’s motions

for appointment of counsel, a no-contact order, and to restrict access to his medical

records, we are unable to review his claims because Hartmann’s untimely motion

for reargument did not toll the time for Hartmann to appeal the April 1 order,7 which

had to be (but was not) appealed on or before May 1, 2025. We note, however, that

the Superior Court file contains two mental health evaluations, both of which are

sealed—one by order dated December 1, 2011, and one by order dated February 28,

2012.

5 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 6(a) (excluding intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays in the computation of a time period of less than eleven days); Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 45(a) (same). 6 See Riley v. State, 2020 WL 5230731, at *1 (Del. Sept. 1, 2020) (noting that a motion to reargue in a criminal matter must be filed and served within five days of the court’s decision under Superior Court Civil Rule 59); 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.”). 7 Boyer v. State, 2007 WL 452300, at *1 (Del. Feb. 13, 2007).

3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm be

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice