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. Salasky

Superior Court of Delaware

April 8, 2019

STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID A. SALASKY, Defendant.

          Submitted: March 1, 2019

          Joseph Grubb, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State of Delaware.

          David A. Salasky, pro se

          COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT'S (SECOND) MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA SHOULD BE DENIED

          MAYER, COMMISSIONER

         This 8th day of April, 2019, upon consideration of Defendant's (Second) Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, and the record in this matter, the following is my Report and Recommendation.

         BACKGROUND, FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On December 5, 2011, David A. Salasky ("Defendant") was indicted on twenty-four (24) felony charges including Murder in the First Degree for causing the death of a New Castle County police officer. At the time of the incident, Defendant was on probation for certain previous felony convictions. Defendant eventually plead guilty but mentally ill to fifteen (15) criminal charges.[1] After consideration of the psychological reports, the Court issued findings that Defendant was competent to enter a plea and that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily.[2] On January 17, 2014, Defendant was sentenced to two life sentences, plus 157 years of incarceration.[3] Defendant did not appeal his conviction.

         On October 16, 2017, Defendant filed his first Motion for Postconviction Relief (the "First Motion").[4] On December 5, 2017, a Report and Recommendation (the "Report")[5] was issued recommending summary dismissal of the First Motion on the basis that: (1) the First Motion was procedurally barred for having been filed more than one year after the judgment of conviction became final; (2) certain claims presented were waived because Defendant plead guilty and/or failed to raise the claims in the original proceedings; and (3) the remaining claims were barred as formerly adjudicated. The Report set forth at length the circumstances surrounding Defendant's mental health, his consumption of pharmaceutical drugs during the trial proceedings, as well as the lengthy colloquy between the trial judge and Defendant whereby the Court addressed Defendant's competency before accepting the plea. After the Report was issued, Defendant filed a letter requesting reconsideration.[6] An Order was entered on January 12, 2018, addressing the arguments presented in the Letter and denying the request for reconsideration of the Report. On February 20, 2018, the Superior Court adopted the Report and denied the First Motion.[7]Defendant did not file an appeal of that decision.

         On March 1, 2019, Defendant filed his (Second) Motion for Postconviction Relief (the "Second Motion").[8] The Second Motion presents several claims but then states:

I don't want post-conviction relief. I want plea dropped. All charges recharged and a trial in Mental Health Court with new judge and counsel, as I don't even know how to get counsel for motions in another state.

         Along with his Motion, Defendant filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea Agreement ("MTW").[9] The MTW presents twenty-five (25) widely ranging claims and little to no legal authority cited in support. All of the claims presented in the Second Motion were likewise set forth in the MTW.

         Defendant's Second Motion for Postconviction Relief[10]

         Pursuant to Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5) the Second Motion may be summarily dismissed because it plainly appears from the record in the case that the motion is procedurally barred and movant is not entitled to relief. As such, the Court should not consider the merits of the claims.[11]

         As an initial matter, Defendant's Second Motion is barred by Super. Ct. Crim. R. 6l(i)(1) for having been filed more than one year after the judgment of conviction became final. Defendant's judgment of conviction became final on February 16, 2014.[12] ...


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.