State v. Ushery - Postconviction Relief Denied

IN THE SU PERIOR C OUR T F OR THE ST A TE OF DELA W ARE ST A TE OF DELA W ARE, v. C AL VIN USHER Y, Defendant))))))))))) I.D. No. 2 20901 1 148A ORDER This 5 th day of March, 202 6, the C ourt ente rs the f ollowin g Or der: 1. Defe nda nt has th ree moti ons pend ing be fore t he Court: a mot ion f or a jury tr ial on his habi tual of fen der se nte ncing, a se parat e motion f or re lief u nder D.R. Crim. P. Rule 61 a nd a motio n for App ointm ent o f Coun sel. T he ha bitua l offe nde r matte r is c urrentl y stayed pe nding a deci sion i n the bellwe ther case of State v. Cl ay Deput y, (Cas e No. 21 100016 95). The Cour t may no nethele ss de al with hi s Rule 61 moti on now, as it doe s not inv olve hi s habitua l offe nder status. 2. I n fact, his Rul e 61 motio n deals with pre cious lit tle, whi ch is the prob lem. Defe ndant fil ed his Ru le 61 mo tion while his ca se wa s pe nding appe al, so

2 it mus t be co nsid ere d time ly fil ed. On t he other ha nd, th e grounds a lle ged are the bare st of bare b ones. Ground o ne says, Movan t rece ived “ inef fective assistan ce of coun sel d urin g tr ial an d appe llat e proc eedin gs” an d gr ound t wo says “M ovant’ s coun sel fa iled to prope rly i nves tiga te and prese nt sub stantia l issue s to t he trial a nd appel late cour ts.” 3. Under R ule 61, a motio n is suf ficie nt if it sets f orth “ a sufficient fa ctual and lega l basis for a collatera l attac k” on a con vict ion. I neff ecti ve assist ance is a time - honored basis upon whi ch to mount such an attack. B ut thi s movant’ s motion sets f orth no fa cts wh atsoever to de term ine whet her it is su f ficie nt. It sets f orth no fact s at al l. Lik ew ise, his c ompla int that prior c ounsel “fai led t o prope rly inve stiga te” su bsta nti al issue s leave the Co urt gue s sing wha t issues counsel faile d to prese nt or what in vestigat ion was no t done. Thus, th e moti on on i ts face fai ls t o inform the Cour t wha t the “f act ual a nd leg al basis” f or th e coll ateral a ttac k is. 4. The pr oblem is br ough t int o even sharpe r relief w hen w e cons ider Defe nda nt’ s req uest f or app ointm ent of co unsel under Rule 61 (e) (4). Defe ndan t had a tria l, so th e crite ria for appoint ment of c ounsel depend s on whet her th e motion the moti on set s fort h a “ subs tant ial cla im ” that the m ovant r eceive d inef fec tive assi stance of tria l or appel late co unse l and that “ spec ific e xcep tion al circ ums tance s warr ant th e appo intm ent of c ounse l. ” De fend ant’ s moti on me ets neit her o f th ese crite ria an d so coun sel ca nnot be app ointed on the basi s of t he mot ion a s wri tten.

3 5. One sup poses th e Cour t could simply deny the motion wit h prejud ice, thus pa ssin g Def enda nt’ s all bu t inev itab le sec ond re ques t on to the more rigor ous stan dard f or a sec ond or subse quent moti on. But D efenda nt’ s pro blem is a fail ure to meet a pleading stan da rd, t he claim is o the rwise time ly and t hus c an b e ame nde d. So we wi ll not. 6. Rathe r, t he Co urt w ill deny Defe ndant’ s mot ion w ith out pr ejud ice to re - plead his case w ith an ar ticula tion of those fa cts that he be liev es war ran t reli ef due to ine f fec tive ass istan ce of cou nsel. And t o meet t he re quir eme nts f or ap point ment of couns el at stat e exp ense, Def enda nt w ill be req uired to artic ula te wha t “s ubsta ntia l claim ” he has a nd w hat “ spec ific e xcepti onal c ircum stance s” war ran t the appoi ntment of counse l. 7. F inal ly, t he Co urt c aut ions D efe nda nt: th e m anda te fr om the Su prem e Court a ffir min g his conv iction on dir ect appeal was iss ued on Se ptem ber 24, 2025. A Rule 61 motio n must be filed w ithin one yea r of the manda te. The inst ant mo tion is be ing de nie d with out preju dice, bu t it al so wil l not exte nd t he tim e lim ita tion f or fili ng a pr oper mot ion. A ny Ru le 61 m oti on fi led afte r Septe mber 24, 2026, will b e cons idere d untimely and will be tr eate d under the more stri ngent re quireme nts for fili ng an u ntim ely m oti on.

4 For the rea sons s tate d above, D efen dan t’ s Moti on for P ostconv icti on Rel ief and Appo intme nt of Couns el a re hereby DENIED without prejudi ce. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ C harle s E. Butle r Char les E. But ler, Re sident Ju dge cc: Protho nota ry Calvin Ushe ry (SBI # 004310 51) Samue l B. Kenny, Dep uty Attorn ey Gener al