State v. Salasky

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: October 27, 2023
• Docket: 1109012491
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 1109012491 ) DAVID SALASKY, ) ) Defendant. )

Submitted: October 16, 20231 Decided: October 27, 2023

Upon Defendant David Salasky’s Motion Seeking Removal of Protective Order in the Above Case Applied by the Superior Court in Order for Defendant to Access Remaining Case/Work File Needed to Pursue Case Relief in in [sic] Lieu of Post- Conviction Relief in Supreme Court Case # 482,2022, DENIED

Upon Defendant David Salasky’s Motion to Withdraw Counsel of Record: DE Public Defender’s Office, DENIED as MOOT

Upon Defendant David Salasky’s Motion for Post Conviction Touch DNA Access Relief and Remedy, DENIED

Upon Defendant David Salasky’s Motion for “Murder Book” or “File,” DENIED

ORDER

Andrew Vella, Esquire, Chief of Appeals, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 820 North French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for State of Delaware.

David Salasky, SBI # 416154/T-94291, c/o Massachusetts Department of Correction @ SBCC c/o Harvard Road, P.O. Box 8000, Shirley MA 01464-8000 Defendant, pro se.

1 The Record and Mandate were received this date by the Superior Court following the Delaware Supreme Court’s Order in Salasky v. State, 2023 WL 5487363 (Del. 2023). WHARTON, J.

The 27th day of October 2023 upon consideration of Defendant’s David

Salasky’s (“Salasky”) Motion Seeking Removal of Protective Order Applied by the

Superior Court in the Above Case in Order for Defendant to Access Remaining

Case/Work File Needed to Pursue Case Relief in in [sic] Lieu of Post-Conviction

Relief in Supreme Court Case # 492,2022 (“Motion to Remove Protective Order”);2

Motion to Withdraw Counsel of Record: DE Public Defender’s Office (“Motion to

Withdraw Counsel”);3 Motion for Post Conviction Touch DNA Access Relief and

Remedy (“Motion for DNA”);4 Motion for “Murder Book” or “File,” (Motion for

Murder Book”); and the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that:

1. In its Order in Salasky’s most recent appeal, the Delaware Supreme

Court summarized the procedural history of his case as follows:

(1) In September 2013, the appellant, David Salasky, pleaded guilty but mentally ill to two counts of first-degree murder, four counts of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, and related offenses. In January 2014, the Superior Court sentenced Salasky to two life sentences plus a term of years.

(2) In October 2017, Salasky filed a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 seeking to set aside his guilty plea. The Superior Court denied the motion in February 2018. Although the motion was untimely, the Superior Court nevertheless considered

2 D.I. 220. 3 D.I. 221. 4 D.I. 224. 2 its merits and found, among other things, that Salasky’s plea was made knowingly and voluntarily. Salasky did not appeal. Between March 2019 and April 2022, Salasky filed four more motions seeking to set aside his guilty plea, all of which were denied.

(3) On November 28, 2022, Salasky filed another motion to set aside his guilty plea. The Superior Court denied it, and this appeal followed.5

After Salasky filed his Notice of Appeal in that appeal, he filed the motions the

Court resolves today.

2. Motion to Remove Protective Order. In this motion, Salasky asks

the Court to release “the remaining Case/Work file and other tangible items to Mr.

Salasky … to persue [sic] relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and other hearings in

the Superior and Supreme Court…”6 He lists the items he seeks: Grand Jury

indictments, rough notes, plea offers or agreements, a signed intention to appeal

form, hospital records, correspondence with the prosecution, motions, orders,

defense witness lists and affidavits, sworn statements and testimony.7 He claims

these items are being withheld from him by his former attorneys with the Public

Defender’s Office.8 Further, he claims that his former attorneys are attempting to

“thwart’ his attempts to obtain justice by “the issuance of a non-heard of ‘protective’

order’” which does not appear on the docket.9 The Court is unaware of any purported

5 Salasky v. State, 2023 WL 62944987 at *1 (Del. Sep. 26, 2023). 6 D.I. 220. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 3 “protective” order and Salasky has not provided the Court with one. Certainly, the

Court has not issued one, and, thus, declines to remove something it did not impose

and has never seen. More importantly, Salasky has nothing pending before this

Court, having exhausted his postconviction relief remedies under Superior Court

Criminal Rule 61.10 Therefore, the Court considers the issue raised by the Motion

to Remove Protective Order to be an attorney/client dispute, unsuited for the Court’s

intervention. The Motion is DENIED.

3. Motion to Withdraw Counsel. In this motion, Salasky states that there

are and have been irreconcilable differences between him and the Public Defender’s

Office.11 He wants that office removed as his attorneys.12 But, the Office of the

Public Defender has not been representing Salasky at least since he filed his pro se

first postconviction relief motion in 2017.13 In reality though, that office’s

representation of Salasky ended when he did not appeal his plea and sentence in

2014. Therefore the Motion to Withdraw Counsel is DENIED as MOOT.

4. Motion for DNA. A previous motion with an identical caption was

denied on February 24, 2022 because it failed to comply with the requirements of

Rule 61, in that it was untimely and repetitive.14 Further, the Court noted that there

10 Salasky, 2023 WL 6294987, at * 1. 11 D.I. 221. 12 Id. 13 D.I. 174 14 D.I. 214. 4 was no pending proceeding that would require any discovery. 15 For the same

reasons the Court denied Salasky’s last one, this Motion for DNA also is DENIED.

5. Motion for Murder Book. In this motion, Salasky moves the Court

to require the State to “produce discovery kept under the guise of ‘The Murder

Book’ or ‘File.’”16 He explains that the “Murder Book” or “File” is something kept

by “some” police departments and includes “all witness statements, the

investigation, notes, pictures, video, and audio tapes/recordings, and descriptions

and materials related to the case.17 As with Salasky’s other discovery requests, there

is nothing pending before the Court that would create an entitlement to discovery.

But, even if Salasky were entitled to discovery, the production of a “Murder Book”

or “File” as he describes them would exceed the materials to which he would be

entitled under former Superior Court Criminal Rule 16. The Motion for “Murder

Book” is DENIED.

THEREFORE, for the reason set forth above:

1. Defendant David Salasky’s Motion Seeking Removal of Protective

Order in the Above Case Applied by the Superior Court in Order for Defendant to

Access Remaining Case/Work File Needed to Pursue Case Relief in in [sic] Lieu of

Post-Conviction Relief in Supreme Court Case # 482,2022 is DENIED;

15 Id. 16 D.I. 238. 17 Id. 5 2. Defendant David Salasky’s Motion to Withdraw Counsel of Record:

DE Public Defender’s Office is DENIED as MOOT;

3. Defendant David Salasky’s Motion for Post Conviction Touch DNA

Access Relief and Remedy is DENIED; and

4. Defendant David Salasky’s Motion for “Murder Book” or “File” is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ferris W. Wharton Ferris W. Wharton, J.