Submitted: November 20, 2018
A. Chapman, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of
Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.
A. Dailey, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna,
Delaware, pro se.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE
M. Parker Commissioner.
1st day of February 2019, upon consideration of
Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears
to the Court that:
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
grand jury indicted Defendant Shawn A. Dailey for five counts
of first degree rape. These charges were based on allegations
that he raped six-year-old S.D. in late 2005.
Beginning May 15, 2007, a jury trial was held. On May 16,
2007, one of the counts of first degree rape was dismissed by
the court. Following the four-day trial, on May 18,
2007, a Superior Court jury found Dailey guilty of three
counts of first degree rape and not guilty of the remaining
count of first degree rape.
August 3, 2007, Dailey was sentenced to a total of 45 years
of unsuspended Level V incarceration, followed by probation.
Dailey appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his
convictions and sentences on September 2, 2008.
September 2, 2009, Dailey filed, through counsel, his first
motion for postconviction relief. On December 30, 2009, Rule
61 counsel sought to withdraw. On January 11, 2010, the court
granted Rule 61 counsel's motion to withdraw and ordered
counsel to write to Dailey and direct Dailey to file an
amended Rule 61 petition prior to February 19, 2010, if
Dailey desired to proceed with his Rule 61
motion. Dailey was advised that if an amended
petition was not received by the February 19, 2010 deadline,
the court would summarily dismiss the Rule 61 motion for
failure to prosecute.
January 14, 2010, Rule 61 counsel sent a letter to Dailey
setting forth the conditions required by the
Dailey did not file an amended Rule 61 petition by the
February 19, 2010 deadline, or for that matter, any time
thereafter. By Order dated March 15, 2010, the court ruled
that since Dailey failed to file an amended petition, his
Rule 61 petition was deemed abandoned. As a result, the court
summarily dismissed the petition.