State v. Gibson ( 2023 )

SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
FERRIS W. WHARTON LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
JUDGE WILMINGTON, DE 19801-3733
PHONE: (302) 255-0657
FAX: (302) 255-2273
January 19, 2023
John W. Downs, Esquire Megan J. Davies, Esquire
Matthew B. Frawley, Esquire 716 Tatnall Street
Samuel B. Kenney, Esquire Wilmington, DE 19801
Deputy Attorneys General
Department of Justice Richard Sparaco, Esquire
820 N. French St. 1920 Fairfax Avenue
Wilmington, DE 19801 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003, and
P.O. Box 371
Lewes, DE 19958
Keith Gibson # 00303443
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
1181 Paddock Rd.
Smyrna, DE 19977
Re: State v. Keith Gibson
ID Nos. 2106004632; 2106004704; 2107000202; 2107000514
Submitted: January 18, 2023
Decided: January 19, 2023
Upon Defendant Keith Gibson’s Pro Se Motion for Reargument,
DENIED.
Dear Counsel and Mr. Gibson:
On July 6, 2021, Defendant Keith Gibson (“Gibson”) was indicted in a forty-
one-count indictment.1 His charges include Murder First Degree (four counts);2
Attempted Murder First Degree (one count) and multiple counts of Robbery First
Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and Possession
of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited. The charges stem from five separate criminal
investigations that took place between May 15, 2021 and June 8, 2021. On
November 2, 2022, the Court entered an order severing the charges and establishing
three groupings for trial.3
The Court held a hearing on Gibson’s then attorneys’ Second Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel on August 31, 2022. At that time, the Court granted him
limited permission to pursue on his own the motions he wanted counsel to file, but
that counsel refused to file because, in their view, they lacked merit.4 On September
1, 2022, the day after the hearing, the Court wrote Gibson explaining the scope of
that limited permission.5 Specifically, the Court permitted Gibson to address by way
of motion his contention that the arrest warrants in ID Nos. 2106004704 and
2106004632 were constitutionally defective because Wilmington Police Cpl. Ryan
Kilmon and Det. A. Ford made material misstatements and material omissions in
their affidavits in order to obtain them.6 It also permitted Gibson to address his claim
alleging that the prosecution and police engaged in misconduct related to pretrial
publicity and in securing the arrest warrants and indictment.7 Finally, it allowed him
to advance his contention that the arrest warrant in ID No. 2106004632 was not
supported by oath or affirmation and was not signed by the affiant or the issuing
judicial authority.8
Gibson filed his motions on September 16, 2022.9 According to the State, his
1
Indictment, D.I. 1.
2
The four First Degree Murder counts are comprised of one intentional murder
charge and one felony murder charge for each of the two homicide victims.
3
State v. Gibson, 2022 WL 16642860 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 2, 2022).
4
See, D.I. 65, 66. (Docket Items are from ID. No. 2106004632A).
5
D.I. 66.
6
Id.7
Id.8
Id.9
Gibson also filed an Affidavit in Conjunction with Motion to Suppress regarding
the Truthfulness of the Statements Contained in the Search Warrant, D.I. 72.
2
filings total 274 pages.10 The State responded in opposition.11 Although the Court
did not request a reply from him, Gibson filed a lengthy one anyway.12 The Court
issued its decision on those motions on December 5, 2022.13 That decision denied
Gibson’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment, his Motion to Suppress Evidence from
Illegal Stop June 8, 2021 Arrest–Franks Challenge/Reverse–Franks, and his Motion
to Suppress Improperly Formed, Constitutionally Defective Arrest Warrants, and
Those Evidences [sic] Derived from the Arrest.14 It deferred his Miranda Violation
Notice, Treated as Motion to Suppress, for a hearing prior to any trial at which the
State seeks to admit the challenged statements.15 It also deferred resolution of
Gibson’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized from Defendant’s Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania Residence 2753 North Croskey Street, Phila PA 18132 until the State
can provide Gibson’s new attorneys with complete copies of the search warrants.16
Since that time, Gibson has written to the President Judge, who was formerly
assigned to his case, on a number of occasions. Apparently, Gibson is under the
mistaken belief that the President Judge conducts appellate review of the decisions
this judge makes. That is not the case. The fact of those filings is noted on the
docket with a notation that they have been referred to Gibson’s counsel. Although
the President Judge makes this judge aware of those filings, the Court takes no action
on them because they are not addressed to the judge assigned to the cased and have
no legal significance or effect.
Most recently, however, on January 18, 2023, this judge received the last 21
pages of what appears to be a 46 page letter delivered in two separate envelopes to
the President Judge.17 Having reviewed all 46 pages, the Court has determined to
treat the correspondence as a Motion for Reargument of its December 5, 2022
10
See, State’s Response, D.I. 78.
11
Id.12
D.I. 79.
13
State v. Keith Gibson, 2022 WL 17430368 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 5, 2022).
14
Id.15
Id., at 5.
16
Id.
17
The letter itself is undated. However, the first 25 pages addressed to the
President Judge were postmarked on January 9, 2023 and pages 26-46 were
postmarked on January 13th. This judge received pages 26-46, also postmarked on
January 13th.
3
decision.
Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e), made applicable to criminal
cases by Superior Court Criminal Rule 57(d), a motion for reargument will be
granted only if 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.”18 A motion for reargument is not an
opportunity for a party to either rehash arguments already decided by the Court or
present new arguments not previously raised.19 Therefore, to succeed on such a
motion, the moving party has the burden of demonstrating the existence of newly
discovered evidence, a change in the law, or manifest injustice.20 Most importantly,
however, “A motion for reargument shall be served and filed within 5 days after the
filing of the Court’s opinion or decision.”21
The motion is untimely, having been filed more than a month after the Court’s
opinion was filed, and is DENIED. Further, having reviewed the motion, which
consists largely of rehashing arguments already decided by the Court, the Court is
not persuaded that it either overlooked controlling precedent or legal principles or
misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome.
Going forward, Gibson is directed to submit his pro se papers, to the extent
the Court permits him to file them, to the Prothonotary. He must copy his attorneys
and opposing counsel on all correspondence. He also may submit courtesy copies
to chambers.
Because this judge received only a portion of the two-part document received
by the President Judge, the Court orders that all three mailings be docketed in order
that the record be complete. The Court also directs that all counsel receive copies
of Gibson’s three filings.
Finally, Gibson is reminded that his permission to participate with counsel is
18
Janeve Co., Inc. v. City of Wilmington, 2009 WL 2386152, at *1 (Del. Super. July
24, 2009) (quoting Reid v. Hindt, 2008 WL 2943373, at *1 (Del. Super. July 31,
2008)).
19
See Reid, 2008 WL 2943373, at *1 (citations omitted).
20
Id.21
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e).
4
limited. Attempts to litigate outside of that limited permission will be referred to
counsel without any action being taken by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ferris W. Wharton
Ferris W. Wharton, J.
5