### S UPERIOR 

### C OURT

OF THE



### S TATE OF 

### D ELAWARE

FERRIS W

. WHARTON L EONARD L. W ILLIAMS J USTICE C ENTER

J UDGE W ILMINGTON

, DE 19801

- 3733

P HONE : (302) 255

- 0657

F AX : (302) 255

- 2273

Submitted: November 4, 2022 1

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 3 71

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 Re consideration

, 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

D ear 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 issu ed an order dealing with those motions on

November 2, 2022. 2 On November 3 rd , 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 expla ining 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 Polic e 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 p retrial

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 issuin g

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 moti on on January 19, 2023. 13

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

obs erved 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 re spond 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 t he Court what rulings Gibson is asking the Court to reconsider

given that his materials were postmark ed 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 t he Court did not address those motions until

December 5, 2022.

9 D.I. 57, 58, 63

.

10 State v. Gib son, 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 R econsider, is

DENIED

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ 

### Ferris W. Wharton

Ferris W. Wharton, J.

o c: Prothonotary