Govan v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ARTHUR GOVAN, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 146, 2006 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 92010166DI Submitted: September 14, 2007 Decided: November 6, 2007 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 6th day of November 2007, upon consideration of the parties briefs, the parties supplemental memoranda, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Arthur Govan, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s March 14, 2006 order summarily denying his fourth motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. So that the Superior Court may reconsider Govan s motion in light of this Court s recent decision in Chao v. State, Del. Supr., No. 475, 2004, Berger, J. (June 20, 2007), this matter will be remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance with this Order. (2) In June 1993, Govan was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of two counts of Intentional Murder in the First Degree, two counts of Criminally Negligent Felony Murder, Burglary in the First Degree, Conspiracy in the First Degree, five counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony and Possession of a Deadly Weapon By a Person Prohibited. He was sentenced to four consecutive life terms without parole plus an additional 115 years. This Court affirmed Govan s convictions and sentences on direct appeal.1 (3) At the time Govan committed his crimes, the felony murder statute provided that a person commits felony murder when [i]n the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempted commission of a felony . . . , the person recklessly causes the death of another person . . . . 2 In Chao v. State, 780 A.2d 1060 (Del. 2001), this Court held that the in furtherance of language of the statute addressed solely the identity of the person committing the murder. Subsequently, in Williams v. State, 818 A.2d 906 (Del. 2002), this Court, overruling Chao, interpreted the felony murder statute to require not only that the murder occur during the course of the 1 2 Govan v. State, Del. Supr., No. 363, 1993, Walsh, J. (Jan. 30, 1995). Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 636(a) (2). 2 felony but also that the murder occur to facilitate commission of the felony. (Emphasis supplied.)3 (4) Relying on Williams, Govan moved for postconviction relief in the Superior Court. Govan argued that his felony murder convictions required reversal because Williams had overruled the holding in Chao upon which his felony murder conviction was grounded. On August 2, 2006, following the completion of briefing in this appeal from the Superior Court s denial of Govan s postconviction motion, the Court ordered the matter stayed pending its decision in Chao v. State, Del. Supr., No. 475, 2004, which would address the retroactivity issue. (5) Following the issuance of the Court s decision, which held the ruling in Williams to be retroactive, supplemental memoranda were submitted by the parties at the Court s request. The State conceded that the ruling enunciated in Williams applies retroactively to Govan s case. However, the State argued that, under the concurrent sentence doctrine, this Court need not expend judicial resources to answer the substantive questions raised in Govan s appeal, since he will spend the rest of his life in prison in any case.4 The State also reserved the right, should this Court decline to 3 4 Williams v. State, 818 A.2d at 913. Stroud v. Milliken Enterprises, Inc., 552 A.2d 476, 480 (Del. 1989). 3 apply the concurrent sentence doctrine, to request the Superior Court to enter convictions on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter as to each victim and to sentence Govan accordingly. (6) We have determined that, under these circumstances, this matter must be remanded so that these issues may be addressed by the Superior Court in the first instance. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court to reconsider Govan s fourth postconviction motion in light of this Court s recent ruling in Chao and to take whatever further action it deems necessary with respect to Govan s current sentences. Jurisdiction is not retained. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 4
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.
