Title: Salasky v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

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 
2 
 
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). 
2 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. 
 
3 
 
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