Spady v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE XAVIER SPADY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 38, 2020 Court Below–Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 1701007644 (N) Submitted: October 28, 2020 Decided: November 24, 2020 Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. ORDER After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court’s order, dated December 31, 2019,1 adopting the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, dated December 10, 2019,2 and denying the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. We also conclude that the Superior Court did not abuse its 1 2 State v. Spady, 2019 WL 7372744 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 31, 2019). State v. Spady, 2019 WL 6717044 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 10, 2019). discretion by declining to appoint counsel to assist the appellant, who pleaded guilty, in the postconviction proceedings.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is GRANTED, and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. Justice 3 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(3) (providing that the Superior Court may appoint counsel to assist an indigent movant with a first timely filed motion for postconviction relief under certain circumstances where the basis of the underlying conviction was a guilty plea). 2
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.
