State v. Dryburgh

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 17, 2024
• Docket: 1707020603
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) I.D. # 1707020603 ) DRYBURGH JONATHAN, ) ) Defendant.

Submitted: May 29, 2024 Decided: July 17, 2024

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION

Upon consideration of Defendant Jonathon Dryburgh’s (“Dryburgh”) Motion

for Discovery and Inspection (the “Discovery Motion”), the Court finds the

following:

1. On March 15, 2018, Dryburgh pled guilty to Attempted Murder First,

Robbery Second, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony,

Resisting Arrest, and Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited.1 On July 13,

2018, he was sentenced to 31 years (unsuspended time) at Level V, followed by

decreasing levels of supervision.2

2. On December 26, 2018, Dryburgh filed a Motion for Postconviction

Relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.3 An April 30, 2019 Commissioner’s

1 D.I. 13. 2 D.I. 16. 3 D.I. 17. Report and Recommendation, recommended that the motion for postconviction

relief be denied. By Order dated May 16, 2019, the Court adopted the

Commissioner’s Report and denied the postconviction motion.4

3. Dryburgh filed his Discovery Motion5 on May 29, 2024, pursuant to

Superior Court Criminal Rule 16, seeking production of a broad array of materials.

The Discovery Motion lists 8 categories of documents Dryburgh seeks: all written

and recorded statements or confessions made by Dryburgh; a written statement

relating to the substance of oral statements made by him; written reports from any

physical or psychological examinations of him or any alleged victims; grand jury

testimony by Dryburgh; executed search warrants; a copy of his prior criminal

record; and all Brady material.6 Dryburgh does not provide any explanation for the

need for this information or a legal basis upon which he is entitled to such

information at this stage.

4. “Superior Court Criminal Rule 16 applies to pre-trial discovery and

does not afford relief to a Defendant post-sentencing.”7 “Nowhere in Rule 16 does

the duty to provide discovery continue after the conviction has become final.”8

4 D.I. 26. 5 D.I. 27. 6 D.I. 27. 7 State v. Daniels, 2016 WL 6610319, at *3 (Del. Super. Oct. 14, 2016). 8 State v. Schultz, 2015 WL 4739503, at *2 (Del. Super. July 31, 2015).

2 5. Accordingly, the Discovery Motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Kathleen M. Miller The Honorable Kathleen M. Miller

Original to prothonotary Matthew Frawley, Esq., Deputy Attorney General Jonathon Dryburgh SBI# 00860757