Case Title: Stanford v, State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 499, 2017

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-05-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHAMAR T. STANFORD, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 499, 2017 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court of the   
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
State of Delaware 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1511011810 (N) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 26, 2018 
Decided: 
May 15, 2018 
 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Shamar T. Stanford, has appealed the Superior Court’s 
order of June 7, 2017,1 and supplemental order of August 28, 2017,2 denying his 
motion for postconviction relief and request for the appointment of counsel under 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to 
affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the 
face of Stanford’s opening and supplemental opening briefs that the appeal is 
without merit.  
                                          
 
1 State v. Stanford, 2017 WL 2484588 (Del. Super. June 7, 2017). 
2 State v. Stanford, 2017 WL 3706959 (Del. Super. Aug. 28, 2017). 
2 
 
 
(2) 
In January 2016, Stanford was indicted for Possession of a Firearm by 
a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”), Endangering the Welfare of a Child, and three drug 
offenses.  During pre-trial proceedings, Stanford’s trial counsel filed a motion to 
suppress, which was denied on December 2, 2016.   
 
(3) 
On December 12, 2016, Stanford pleaded guilty to two charges in the 
indictment—PFBPP and endangering the welfare of a child—and was sentenced to 
a total of sixteen years of Level V incarceration, including a five-year minimum 
mandatory term, with the balance suspended for probation.  In exchange for the 
guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the other charges in the indictment.     
 
(4) 
Stanford did not file a direct appeal from the guilty plea or sentence.  
He did, however, file a series of letters and motions—including a motion for 
postconviction relief—attacking the validity of his guilty plea and sentence, the 
effectiveness of his trial counsel, and the Superior Court’s denial of the pre-trial 
suppression motion.   
 
(5) 
In his postconviction motion as amended in April and May 2017, 
Stanford raised overlapping claims of illegal search and seizure, police perjury, 
ineffective assistance of counsel, unfulfilled plea agreement, and involuntary guilty 
plea.  Also, Stanford requested the appointment of counsel.  The Superior Court 
denied the merit of Stanford’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and 
dismissed those claims under Rule 61(d), and determined that Stanford’s challenges 
3 
 
to the guilty plea, the sentence imposed, and the pre-trial suppression ruling, were 
procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(3), (4), and (5). 
 
(6) 
We review the Superior Court’s denial of postconviction relief for 
abuse of discretion and questions of law de novo.3  Having carefully considered the 
parties’ submissions on appeal and the Superior Court record—including an affidavit 
filed by Stanford’s former trial counsel in response to the allegations of 
ineffectiveness—we affirm the denial of Stanford’s motion for postconviction relief 
and request for counsel on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decisions 
of June 7, 2017 and August 28, 2017.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
  
 
                                          
 
3 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 (Del. 1996).