Submitted: December 10, 2019
Defendant, Xavier Spady's, Motion for Postconviction
R. Wallace, Judge.
31st day of December, 2019, upon consideration of
the Defendant Xavier Spady's Pro Se Motion for
Postconviction Relief and the amendments thereto (D.I. 13, 20
and 32), the State's responses (D.I. 27 and 34), the
Commissioner's Report and Recommendation that Mr.
Spady's Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief
should be DENIED, and the record in this
case, it appears to the Court that:
March 6, 2017, a grand jury indicted Xavier Spady for one
count of Assault in a Detention Facility and one count of
Attempted Assault in a Detention Facility.
October 30, 2017, Mr. Spady pleaded guilty to those two
Spady was sentenced on January 19, 2018, to: (a) three years
at Level V for the Assault in a Detention Facility charge;
and (b) five years at Level V, suspended after three years
for one year at Level III.
January 2019, Mr. Spady filed a timely pro se Motion
for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal
After expansion of the record and the State's response,
that motion was referred to Superior Court Commissioner
Katharine L. Mayer in accordance with 10 Del. C.
§ 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for
proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations for its disposition.
Commissioner docketed her Report and Recommendation on
December 10, 2019. The Commissioner recommended that Mr.
Spady's Motion for Postconviction Relief be
"Within ten days after filing of a Commissioner's
proposed findings of fact and recommendations . . . any party
may serve and file written objections."Neither Mr. Spady
nor the State filed an "objection" to the
Commissioner's Report under Criminal Rule 62(a)(5)(ii).
Court accepts, in whole, the findings of fact and
recommendations made by the Commissioner. After a thorough
review of the record in this case, the Court finds there is
no constitutional or legal basis to doubt the validity of Mr.
Spady's conviction-his guilty plea was knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent. Nor is there a doubt that Mr.
Spady's counsel was wholly effective when evaluating his
case for potential mental health or other defenses, when
litigating the issues that counsel had a good faith basis to
believe had merit, when negotiating a plea resolution-which
included a concession by the State to withhold a habitual
criminal sentencing petition, and when assisting Mr. Spady
while entering his guilty plea. Counsel also thoroughly
prepared for and advocated during Mr. Spady's sentencing.
In short, it plainly appears from the motion and the record
of prior proceedings that Mr. Spady is not entitled to
THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review
of the record in this case, and for the reasons stated in the
Commissioner's Report and Recommendation of December 10,
2019, Mr. ...