Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
State v. Hall
Superior Court of Delaware
August 2, 2019
STATE OF DELAWARE
GIBSON A. HALL Defendant.
SHELDON K. RENNIE, JUDGE.
2nd day of August, 2019, having considered Defendant's
"Motion to Reopen Interlocutory Judgment and/or Relief
from Judgment or Order Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule
60(b)(6)," the State's Response, Defendant's
Reply, and the record of this case, Defendant's Motion is
1. In 1979, Gibson Hall (the "Defendant") was
convicted, after a jury trial, of First Degree Murder and
Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a
Felony ("PDWDCF"). In 1980, he was sentenced to
Life Imprisonment plus five years at Level V.
2. In 1981, his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by
the Delaware Supreme Court. In 1987, 2008, and 2013,
Defendant filed Motions for Postconviction Relief which were
all denied by the Superior Court, and each of those denials
were affirmed by Delaware Supreme Court.
3. On May 22, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion for Transcripts
in order to support a prospective fourth motion for
postconviction relief. Defendant sought transcripts of the
statements at trial, the sentencing hearing, and the denial
of a motion for a new trial. His Motion failed to plead with
particularity either: (1) the existence of new evidence that
creates a strong inference of actual innocence or (2) a new
rule of retroactively applicable constitutional law that
renders his conviction invalid. This Court denied
Defendant's Motion, pursuant to Superior Court Criminal
4. Defendant appealed the denial of his Motion for
Transcripts. On August 17, 2018, citing Davis v.
State,  the Delaware Supreme Court dismissed
Defendant's appeal on the grounds that the denial of a
request for transcripts (to support a contemplated Rule 61
motion) was an interlocutory order and, therefore, it lacked
jurisdiction to consider that appeal. On September 4, 2018, the
Delaware Supreme Court denied Defendant's Motion for
Rehearing en Banc.
5. On November 29, 2018, Defendant filed a "Motion to
Reopen Interlocutory Judgment and/or Relief From
Judgment." Defendant alleges that he is without
recourse, because the denial of the Motion for Transcripts is
not a final order and thus, constitutes extraordinary
6. The Court deems Defendant's pleading to be a Motion
for Reconsideration of its denial of his Motion for
Transcripts. Defendant's stated purpose for his request
for transcripts is so that he can "prepare and file a
motion for postconviction relief which he claims is
permissible pursuant to Criminal Rule 61(d). He suggests,
without providing any details or proffered evidence, that
there is newly discovered evidence that would support his
prospective fourth postconviction motion.
7. In support of the Motion to Reopen and/or Relief from
Judgment, Defendant attached selected correspondence from
1991 through 2018. Most of the correspondence are from
Defendant's attorneys to the Department of Justice and
the Public Defender's Office requesting or communicating
about records and documents to be utilized in his sentence
commutation proceeding before the Board of
8. On February 28, 2019, the State filed a Response in
Opposition to Defendant's Motion. On March 14, 2019,
Defendant submitted a Reply.
9. Defendant apparently seeks official Court transcripts as
well as the records (loosely referred to as
"transcripts") of witness interviews compiled by
the Attorney General's Office. To the extent that
Defendant moves the Court for police/DAG investigation notes
and memoranda of police interviews for commutation
purposes, (all of which Mr. Patrizio has referred to as
"transcripts"), those items are not official court
records and are not within the Court's possession.
Indeed, Mr. Patrizio represents Defendant in the commutation
process and not in connection with any prospective
postconviction relief. Hence, his requests were aimed solely
at obtaining records and information to be utilized before
the Board of Pardons.
10. To the extent that Defendant seeks official court records
in order to file another Rule 61 motion for postconviction
relief from his conviction, Defendant has not shown that
another Rule 61 motion would not be barred. His stated
purpose continues to be vague, lacks particularity, and fails
to support any exception that would overcome a bar to
the Defendant's "Motion to Reopen Interlocutory
Judgment and/or Relief from Judgment or Order Pursuant to
Buy This Entire Record For