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

Submitted: November 4, 20221

Decided: February 15, 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; 21060044704; 2107000202; 2107000514

Upon Defendant Keith Gibson’s Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration,

DENIED. 

1 The materials were received in chambers on November 4, 2022. As an 

unauthorized filing, they appear in the docket with the notation “Rule 47 Referral to 

counsel memorandum filed.” See, D.I. 70 (December 7, 2022) and D.I 71 

(December 1, 2022). 
2

Dear Counsel and Mr. Gibson:

In the status report dated February 13, 2023, counsel clarified that the 

Defendant’s 400 plus page pro se filing was intended to be viewed as a “Motion to 

Reconsider the Court’s prior rulings and/or to reconsider the Court’s denial of a 

rehearing.” A chronology of the Court’s recent decisions is helpful to put this 

purported motion to reconsider in context.

Before being allowed to withdraw, Gibson’s original attorneys filed six 

motions on his behalf. The Court issued an order dealing with those motions on 

November 2, 2022.2 On November 3rd, the Court granted those attorneys’ second 

motion to withdraw as counsel.3

Prior to issuing those orders, on August 31, 2022, the Court granted Gibson 

limited permission to pursue on his own the motions he wanted prior counsel to file, 

but that they had refused to file because, in their view, the motions lacked merit.4 

The next day, the Court wrote Gibson explaining the scope of that limited 

permission.5 Specifically, the Court permitted Gibson to address by way of pro se

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 

2 State v. Gibson, 2022 WL 16642860 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 2, 2022).

3 D.I. 60.

4 See, D.I. 65, 66. (Docket Items are from ID. No. 2106004632A). 

5 D.I. 66.

6

Id.

7

Id.

8

Id.
3

Gibson filed his motions on September 16, 2022.9 The Court issued its 

decision on those motions on December 5, 2022.10 On January 18, 2023, the Court 

received several letters from Gibson.11 The Court treated those letters in the 

aggregate as a motion to reargue the decision it issued on December 5, 2022.

12 It 

denied that motion on January 19, 2023.13 

On November 18, 2022, the State wrote to the Court.14 In that letter, the State 

observed that on November 15, 2022, it received a package, postmarked November 

2nd, from Gibson containing 441 pages that appeared to raise some of the same 

issues raised in his pro se motions and some others.15 The State advised that it did 

not intend to respond to these materials because they were untimely, having been 

filed after the Court’s September 30, 2022 deadline for filing pro se motions.

16 The 

State represented that it would forward these materials to new defense counsel when 

they were appointed.17 Presumably, current defense counsel has these materials. By 

letter dated November 21, 2022, the Court advised Gibson that it would not rule on 

this filing since it was untimely.18 

It is unclear to the Court what rulings Gibson is asking the Court to reconsider 

given that his materials were postmarked November 2, 2022. That date is the same 

day the Court ruled on his previous attorneys’ motions and before the Court ruled 

on his motions. What is clear to the Court, however, is that he does not ask the Court 

to reconsider any ruling the Court made on any pro se motion the Court permitted 

him to file under Rule 47 since the Court did not address those motions until 

December 5, 2022. 

9 D.I. 57, 58, 63. 

10 State v. Gibson, 2022 WL 17430368 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 5, 2022).

11 D.I. 76-78.

12 State v. Gibson, 2023 WL 315332 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 19, 2023).

13 Id.

14 D.I. 61.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 D.I. 62.
4

Therefore, Gibson’s 441 page filing, treated as a Motion to Reconsider, is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ferris W. Wharton

Ferris W. Wharton, J.

 

oc: Prothonotary