State v. Salasky

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: June 20, 2024
• 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: June 11, 2014 Decided: June 20, 2024

Upon Defendant David Salasky’s Motion of a Transferred Inmate to Remove the Sealment [sic] of “Protection” for Defendant to Gain Access to Case/Work File and Needed Law Materials to Pursue Post Conviction Relief Pro Se, out of Refusal of Counsel Afforded by Law 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.

WHARTON, J. This 20th day of June 2024 upon consideration of Defendant’s David Salasky’s

(“Salasky”); Motion of a Transferred Inmate to Remove the Sealment [sic] of

“Protection” for Defendant to Gain Access to Case/Work File and Needed Law

Materials to Pursue Post Conviction Relief Pro Se, out of Refusal of Counsel

Afforded by Law,1 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 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. 2

1 D.I. 245. 2 Salasky v. State, 2023 WL 62944987 at *1 (Del. Sep. 26, 2023). 2 2. After the Delaware Supreme Court resolved that appeal, this court

addressed, and denied, a series of motions Salasky filed in this Court after he filed

his Notice of Appeal. 3 First, the Court denied Salasky’s 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”). In that Motion, he asked 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…”4 The items he sought were: 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. 5 He claimed these items were being

withheld from him by his former attorneys with the Public Defender’s Office.6

Further, he claimed that his former attorneys were 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. 7 Since there was nothing pending before the

Court then, and since Salasky had exhausted his postconviction relief remedies

3 State v. Salasky, 2023 WL 7105284 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 27, 2023). 4 Id. at *1. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. 3 under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, 8 the Court considered the issue raised by

the Motion to Remove Protective Order to be an attorney/client dispute, unsuited

for the Court’s intervention.

3. Next, he moved to “withdraw counsel.” In that motion, Salasky stated

that there were, and had been, irreconcilable differences between him and the Public

Defender’s Office. 9 He wanted that office removed as his attorneys.10 But, the

Office of the Public Defender had not been representing Salasky at least since he

filed his pro se first postconviction relief motion in 2017.11 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 was denied as moot.12

4. A third Motion for DNA was identical to a previous motion that was

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

Rule 61, in that it was untimely and repetitive. 13 Further, the Court noted that there

was no pending proceeding that would require any discovery. 14

5. Finally, Salasky’s Motion for Murder Book asked the Court to require

the State to “produce discovery kept under the guise of ‘The Murder Book’ or

8 Salasky, 2023 WL 6294987, at * 1. 9 Salasky, 2023 WL 7105284, at *2. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. at *2 14 Id. 4 ‘File.’”15 He explained 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.16 The Motion for “Murder Book” was denied because, as with

Salasky’s other discovery requests, there was nothing pending before the Court that

would create an entitlement to discovery.17 But, even if Salasky were entitled to

discovery, the production of a “Murder Book” or “File” as he described them would

have exceeded the materials to which he would have been entitled under former

Superior Court Criminal Rule 16.18

6. Salasky did not appeal any of the Court’s denials of those motions.

Instead, he files the present motion. In it he repeats much of what his previously

denied motions alleged and seeks much, if not all, of the same material. Ultimately,

though, once the Court discounts Salasky’s hyperbole and his ad hominum

comments about his former lawyers, he is in the same position he was previously

when the Court denied his multiple motions in October 2023 – there is nothing

pending before this Court and he has exhausted his postconviction relief remedies

under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.

15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 5 THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Defendant David Salasky’s

Motion of a Transferred Inmate to Remove the Sealment [sic] of “Protection” for

Defendant to Gain Access to Case/Work File and Needed Law Materials to Pursue

Post Conviction Relief Pro Se, out of Refusal of Counsel Afforded by Law is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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