Salasky v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DAVID A. SALASKY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § No. 482, 2022 Court Below–Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 1109012491 (N) Submitted: July 12, 2023 Decided: September 26, 2023 Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. ORDER After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Cour that: (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. A motion to set aside a guilty plea after the Superior Court has imposed a sentence must be made under Rule 61.1 The motion “constitutes a collateral attack against the conviction[s] and is subject to the requirements of Rule 61, including its bars of procedural default.”2 The Superior Court therefore properly denied Salasky’s motion, which was procedurally barred.3 1 Del. Super. Crim. R. 32(d). Blackwell v. State, 736 A.2d 971, 972–73 (Del. 1999). 3 Del. Super. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent motion for postconviction relief must be summarily dismissed unless the movant was convicted after a trial and pleads with particularity (i) new evidence of actual innocence or (ii) that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review, applies to the movant’s case and renders the conviction invalid). After the State filed its motion to affirm, Salasky filed a “motion for order to supplement the record on appeal,” in which he asks the Court to direct his trial counsel to turn over to him medical records that he believes remain in counsel’s possession and are relevant to his arguments on appeal. Because Salasky’s motion to set aside his guilty plea was procedurally barred, these records cannot advance his cause, and the motion is DENIED. 2 2 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/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice 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.
