Submitted: March 1, 2019
Grubb, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State of Delaware.
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
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.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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. 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. On January 17, 2014,
Defendant was sentenced to two life sentences, plus 157 years
of incarceration. Defendant did not appeal his conviction.
October 16, 2017, Defendant filed his first Motion for
Postconviction Relief (the "First
Motion"). On December 5, 2017, a Report and
Recommendation (the "Report") 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. 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.Defendant did not file an appeal of that
March 1, 2019, Defendant filed his (Second) Motion for
Postconviction Relief (the "Second
Motion"). 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.
with his Motion, Defendant filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea
Agreement ("MTW"). 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.
Second Motion for Postconviction Relief
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.
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. ...