State of Delaware v. Banks, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) ) JAMAAR S. BANKS ) MICHAEL R. BETHARD ) HARRY W. BLENDT ) JOHN E. BRADLEY ) CHRISTOPHER D. BREWER a/k/a ) CHRISTOPHER JERNIGAN ) WARREN BROOKS ) ANTOINE L. BURGESS ) CARRIE A. BUTLER ) SHON CALDWELL ) LEMAR C. CAMPBELL ) SHAUN CARPENTER ) RICHARD S. CARTER ) ROBERTO CHERRICKS ) MARK S. COLEMAN ) MARVIS COLONA ) BRIAN CROSSMAN ) BRADLEY A. DAVIS ) MYKAL DEMPSTER ) MICHAEL D. DIX ) KURT S. DUPREE ) ABBYDALE N. FINNEY a/k/a ) ABBYDALE SEABROOKS ) WESLEY J. FISHER ) CHRISTOPHER T. FOOTE ) PATRICK R. FURBECK ) SEANNE M. GODWIN ) JEREMY GORDY ) JERRI GREEN ) QUAHEEM HALL ) JUSTIN HOLDERBAUM ) ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. 1211016583 1304009788 1307025699 1211008008 ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. 1205008276 1110009338 1304022461 1204012409 1306008038 1012001879 0912005873 1204018496 1212012552 1304014873 1311015254 1010009425 1202012547 1205019774A 1306018495 0912010393 1211007648 ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. 1110018244 1210028521 1305018534 1008014466 1311003205 1304014924 1310003660 1204006263 QUAYSHAUN JOHNSON SAVANNAH JOHNSON ANTOINE J. JONES ASHTON D. JORDAN DAVID KING DESTINY G. LABERGE KELLY LAWLOR DASHERE LEWIS DOMINICK LITTLE CHARLES L. LIVINGSTON CRYSTAL LYSINGER MARK MARTIN NICK MARTINEZ DWAYNE N. MATTHEWS MICHAEL D. MESSICK JEROME A. MILLER RODNEY L. MILLER JAMES MOSES ELLIOTT OWENS KYE PABON EDWARD J. POTTS DEVRON POWELL STEPHONE POWELL CORY PRICE DAVID A. RANSHAW MICHAEL A. RATLEDGE ELWOOD J. ROSS EDWIN A. SANTIAGO TYRONE N. SAYLES ADAM SCOTT ALPHONSO SIMMONS SAMUEL SMITH KINON D. TEAT ANTHONY TROWER JAQUITA P. TURNAGE TAQUION TURNER ALLEN WILLIAMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. 2 1007025439 1303011652 0810005948 1303009650 0912001839 1208006617 1304023378 1103018539 1305012566 1109010352 1212012158 1305024514 1309011710 1210000641 1306000151 1211017948 1208012411 1303014531 0905018717 1306024965 1003022526 1209014758 1205007336 1304020013 1307023483 1212013114 1012018727 1302015909 1205012091 1111006658 1303023438 1302018753 0909012957 1309013276 0911004091 1310001534 1309013336 ASHMERE WRIGHT DEMETRIUS M. WRIGHT ) ) ID No. 1212013498 ID No. 1312012266 ORDER Upon consideration of the captioned cases’ Motion for Reargument, the State’s opposition and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that: 1. On April 20, 2015, the Court entered judgment against the captioned cases, denying their individual Motion(s) for Postconviction Relief. The captioned cases timely filed this motion thereafter.1 2. A motion for reargument seeks reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgments of law.2 A motion for reargument will be denied unless the moving party has demonstrated that 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.” 3 Specifically, “[a] motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the Court, nor will the Court consider new arguments that the movant could have previously raised.”4 3. With the exception of the argument that the Court reconsider its decision in the interest of justice in light of newly discovered evidence, the issues raised in the captioned cases’ Motion for Reargument were considered by the Court in making its 1 Defense counsel chose 68 out of the117 originally subject to this Order to seek reargument. 2 Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969). 3 First Bank of Delaware, Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, 2013 WL 6407603 at *1 (Del. Super. Dec. 4, 2013). 4 Id. 3 State v. Jamaar S. Banks, et al. June 17, 2015 original decision. Like the recent decision in Carrero v. State,5 there is no evidence that the drugs in these cases were compromised. Similar to Carrero6 and Brown,7 in each of these cases, a knowing, intelligent and voluntary guilty plea waived any right to test the chain of custody of the drug evidence. 4. As to the captioned cases’ newly discovered evidence argument, the alleged wrongdoing8 is far less egregious than the alleged conduct of the original bad actors– which this Court’s April 20, 2015 Order has already explained has no bearing on the binding effect of the captioned cases’ knowing and voluntary guilty pleas. Similar to the conduct of the original bad actors, the newly discovered bad acts do not warrant a finding of actual or presumptive involuntariness of the captioned cases’ guilty pleas. Unless, of course, there is evidence of a different factual scenario like the one suggested in Brown v. State, where a defendant entered a reluctant, but fully informed, no contest or guilty plea to lesser charges with no prison sentence to avoid the risk of a lengthy prison sentence on more serious charges, while proclaiming his factual innocence and expressing incredulity that the substance he claimed was legal had tested to be illegal narcotics, a later revelation that evidence planting had occurred in the relevant police department 5 Carrero v. State, 2015 WL 3367940 (Del. May 21, 2015). 6 Id. 7 Brown v. State, 108 A.3d 1201 (Del. 2015). 8 The captioned cases point to a chemist at the Division of Forensic Science who has worked on numerous cases at the OCME, has– since October 2014– “received three corrective action reports due to missing evidence, mishandling of evidence and discrepancies in reported evidence.” 4 State v. Jamaar S. Banks, et al. June 17, 2015 and that the defendant had been one of the victims of that misconduct,...9 The captioned cases’ newly discovered evidence fails to put forth any such evidence. Accordingly, this Court’s original Order controls. 5. Since the captioned cases’ have not met the standard for granting a motion for reargument, the motion is DENIED. /s/ William L. Witham, Jr. Hon. William L. Witham, Jr. Resident Judge Dated: June 17, 2015 WLW/dmh oc: Prothonotary cc: Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Esquire Kathleen M. Jennings, Esquire Stephen R. Welch, Jr., Esquire J. Brendan O’Neill, Esquire Elliot Margules, Esquire Nicole M. Walker, Esquire William T. Deely, Esquire 9 Brown, 108 A.3d at 1202. 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.