Opinion
ID No. 1109012491
02-24-2020
STATE OF DELAWARE, v. DAVID A. SALASKY, JR., Defendant.
John W. Downs, Esquire, Department of Justice, 820 N. French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. Attorney for State of Delaware. David A. Salasky, Jr., Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, P.O. Box 8000, Shirley, MA 01464. Pro Se Defendant.
On Defendant's Motion for Transcripts - DISMISSED
On Defendant's Motion to Allow Discovery - DISMISSED
On Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea - DISMISSED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John W. Downs, Esquire, Department of Justice, 820 N. French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. Attorney for State of Delaware. David A. Salasky, Jr., Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, P.O. Box 8000, Shirley, MA 01464. Pro Se Defendant. CARPENTER, J.
The Court has before it three Motions filed by the Defendant. He has requested transcripts at State expense and discovery, as well as permission to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant previously filed Motions for Postconviction Relief on October 16, 2017 and March 1, 2019, which were subsequently denied by the Court. Included in Defendant's 2019 Postconviction Motion were claims in support of his request to withdraw his guilty plea. Those claims were reviewed by Commissioner Mayer in her decision in April 2019 and were denied.
The Court has reviewed the pending Motions and finds they are all without merit. The basis for the request for transcripts and discovery is that Defendant would like to file a motion that the Court has previously found to be procedurally barred. The Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea is also procedurally barred as it was decided by the Court in April of 2019. The present Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea again asserts (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the Court failed to allow attorney voir dire; (3) the Court failed to change venue; (4) an alleged speedy trial violation; and (5) the jury was improperly influenced by the media and thus Defendant did not receive a fair trial. These issues were either addressed in prior rulings of the Court or were waived by Defendant's guilty plea.
Finally, Defendant asserts that his treatment for mental illness has violated his freedom of religion and political views under the U.S. Constitution. The Court is unaware of any infringement of Defendant's religious rights by making the possession of an illegal drug a criminal act. While the Defendant may find others of a similar political view who believe that certain drugs should be legalized, this does not logically lead to a constitutional violation when one is arrested for the possession of those drugs. In addition, beyond making the old assertion that the conduct of the police violated his constitutional rights in some way, there is nothing provided by the Defendant to support that claim.
Based upon the above, Defendant's Motion for Transcripts, Motion to Allow Discovery and Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea are procedurally barred and without merit and are summarily dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ William C. Carpenter, Jr.
Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr.