Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Spady

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

November 28, 2018

STATE OF DELAWARE,
v.
MARVIN D. SPADY, Defendant.

          RK14-05-0586-01 Drug Deal (F)

         Upon 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.

          Marvin D. Spady, Pro se.

          COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          FREUD, COMMISSIONER

         The 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.

         A 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.

         FACTS

         The 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.[1]

         SPADY'S CONTENTIONS

         In his 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 case. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.