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. Dailey

Superior Court of Delaware

February 1, 2019

STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff,
v.
SHAWN A. DAILEY, Defendant.

          Submitted: November 20, 2018

          Cari A. Chapman, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.

          Shawn 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 SUMMARILY DISMISSED

          Lynne M. Parker Commissioner.

         This 1st day of February 2019, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears to the Court that:

         BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         1. A 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.

         2. 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.[1] 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.

         3. On August 3, 2007, Dailey was sentenced to a total of 45 years of unsuspended Level V incarceration, followed by probation.

         3. Dailey appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences on September 2, 2008.[2]

         4. On 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.[3] 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.[4]

         5. On January 14, 2010, Rule 61 counsel sent a letter to Dailey setting forth the conditions required by the court.[5]

         6. 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.[6]

         DAILEY'S ...


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.