RK14-05-0586-01 Drug Deal (F)
Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief Pursuant to
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61
Gregory R. Babowal, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Department
of Justice, for the State of Delaware.
D. Spady, Pro se.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
defendant, Marvin D. Spady ("Spady"), pled no
contest on January 6, 2016, to one count of Drug Dealing, 16
Del. C. § 4753(2). He was also facing three
additional counts of Drug Dealing, two counts of Conspiracy
Second Degree, one count of Possession of Marijuana, and one
count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Spady faced the
possibility of life in prison as an habitual offender had he
gone to trial and been found guilty of all the counts against
him. Nolle prosequis were entered by the State on
the additional charges in exchange for Spady's plea. On
January 6, 2016, the Court sentenced Spady to eight years
incarceration at Level V, suspended after three years at
Level V incarceration effective May 16, 2014, followed by one
year supervision at Level III. Spady did not appeal his
conviction or sentence to the State Supreme Court instead on
July 26, 2016, Spady filed a. pro se Motion for
Postconviction Relief pursuant to Rule 61 alleging, in part,
ineffective assistance of counsel.
briefing schedule was established and Spady's former
counsel and the State filed responses to his motion. Also
Spady filed replies to the former counsel's affidavit and
the State's response. While the matter was in briefing
Spady was released from incarceration and began serving the
probationary portion of his sentence. Probation did not go
well for Spady and he was found in violation of his probation
three times. While the various violation of probation
hearings were pending, Spady's motion for postconviction
relief was stayed. Finally on October 24, 2018 at his final
violation of probation hearing, Spady was discharged from his
probation and the postconviction motion was processed for
decision by the Court staff.
charges stem from a search conducted at the Traveler's
Inn Motel in Milford, Delaware. The Milford Police Department
obtained a search warrant after using an informant to make
controlled purchases at the motel. Spady and codefendant
Jennifer M. Sparacio were located inside the room of the
Traveler's Inn. Police found 3.5 grams of heroin, $1,
737.00 in a bundle, and a bag containing a digital scale and
plastic baggies. Police also searched a vehicle which was
known to be operated by Spady. Marijuana (0.6 grams) was
found inside the vehicle.
motion, Spady raises the following grounds for relief:
Ground one: Denied right to a fair trial. The Courts by and
through Judge Clark at evidentiary hearing allowed evidence
and information to the use of the first informant whom was
suppressed in order by Judge Witham.
Ground two: Denied Due Process/Prosecutorial Misconduct. The
Courts improperly permitted the State to be able to introduce
search warrant by denying Motion in Limine. On Oct 12, 2015
the Court issued an Order suppressing all evidence related to
use of first informant in the investigation.
Ground three: Violation of Due Process 5th,
6th, 14th Amend. US/Del. Const.
Prosecutorial Misconduct. The courts and prosecution
illegally introduce evidence of first informant, switched the
Judge, and gave def another Judge whom was not familiar with