Opinion
I.D. 1707020603
07-17-2024
STATE OF DELAWARE, v. DRYBURGH JONATHAN, Defendant.
Matthew Frawley, Esq., Deputy Attorney General Jonathon Dryburgh
Submitted: May 29, 2024
Matthew Frawley, Esq., Deputy Attorney General Jonathon Dryburgh
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION
Honorable Kathleen M. Miller, Judge
Upon consideration of Defendant Jonathon Dryburgh's ("Dryburgh") Motion for Discovery and Inspection (the "Discovery Motion"), the Court finds the following:
1. On March 15, 2018, Dryburgh pled guilty to Attempted Murder First, Robbery Second, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Resisting Arrest, and Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited. On July 13, 2018, he was sentenced to 31 years (unsuspended time) at Level V, followed by decreasing levels of supervision.
D.I. 13.
D.I. 16.
2. On December 26, 2018, Dryburgh filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. An April 30, 2019 Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, recommended that the motion for postconviction relief be denied. By Order dated May 16, 2019, the Court adopted the Commissioner's Report and denied the postconviction motion.
D.I. 17.
D.I. 26.
3. Dryburgh filed his Discovery Motion on May 29, 2024, pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 16, seeking production of a broad array of materials. The Discovery Motion lists 8 categories of documents Dryburgh seeks: all written and recorded statements or confessions made by Dryburgh; a written statement relating to the substance of oral statements made by him; written reports from any physical or psychological examinations of him or any alleged victims; grand jury testimony by Dryburgh; executed search warrants; a copy of his prior criminal record; and all Brady material. Dryburgh does not provide any explanation for the need for this information or a legal basis upon which he is entitled to such information at this stage.
D.I. 27.
D.I. 27.
4. "Superior Court Criminal Rule 16 applies to pre-trial discovery and does not afford relief to a Defendant post-sentencing." "Nowhere in Rule 16 does the duty to provide discovery continue after the conviction has become final."
State v. Daniels, 2016 WL 6610319, at *3 (Del. Super. Oct. 14, 2016).
State v. Schultz, 2015 WL 4739503, at *2 (Del. Super. July 31, 2015).
5. Accordingly, the Discovery Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.