State of Delaware v. Bunting.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE v. SHAWN BUNTING, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ID No. 0407024013 ORDER Upon consideration of the Defendant s Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner s Findings of Fact and Recommendations and the record in this case, it appears that: 1. On February 4, 2005, after a four-day trial, a jury found defendant guilty of Possession With Intent to Deliver Non-Narcotic Schedule I Controlled Substance; Use of a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled Substances; Use of a Dwelling for Keeping Controlled Substances; Possession of Drug Paraphernalia; and Driving While License is Suspended/Revoked. The State filed a motion to declare defendant an Habitual Offender, which the Court granted on April 29, 2005. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison. 2. Defendant filed an appeal on May 26, 2005. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of this Court on September 7, 2006. 3. Defendant filed his first motion for postconviction relief on October 18, 2007. In addition, Defendant filed a motion for leave to file an amendment to his Rule 61 motion to explain his ineffective assistance of counsel claims or an expansion of the record. The Court issued an order on January 31, 2008 denying the motion challenging his sentence, but granting the motion for leave to amend his postconviction relief motion on the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 4. Defendant filed an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court on February 29, 2008. On March 19, 2008, while the appeal was pending, he filed a motion to amend; a motion for designation of transcripts; and a motion for appointment of counsel. On April 28, 2008, the Court denied the motion to appoint counsel and denied the motion for designation of transcripts. The Court granted the motion to amend. The Court subsequently determined that each of the nine claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit and the Court denied the motion for post conviction relief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on July 23, 2008. 5. On June 24, 2010, defendant filed a Second Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 2 6. This Motion for Postconviction Relief was referred to a Superior Court Commissioner pursuant to 10 Del. C. ยง512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. 7. The Commissioner issued the Findings of Fact and Recommendations on January 18, 2011, recommending that defendant s second motion for postconviction relief be denied. No objections to the Commissioner s recommendations have been filed. THEREFORE, for the reasons stated in the Commissioner s January 18, 2011 Findings of Fact and Recommendations that Defendant s Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief should be Denied; IT IS ORDERED this 21st day of February, 2011, that the Commissioner s Findings of Fact and Recommendations are adopted by the Court. Defendant s Second Motion for Postconviction Relief is hereby DENIED. /s/ M M Johnston ary . The Honorable Mary M. Johnston 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
