1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE ) )

v. ) ID# 1511001640 ) RYAN SHOVER
, ) ) Defendant. )

Date Submitted: March 24, 2023 Date Decided: May 1 5 , 2023

ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief 1

and Appointed Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel; 2 Superior Court Criminal
Rule 61; the facts, arguments, and legal authorities set forth in the Motions; statutory

and decisional law; and the record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT :
1) On February 1, 2018, a jury found Defendant Ryan Shover guilty of
two counts of Murder First Degree, two counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon
During the Commission of a Felony, Conspiracy First Degree, and Insurance Fraud. 3

2) On July 30, 2018, Defendant filed a notice of direct appeal. 4 On May
21, 2019, the Supreme Court of Delaware issued its Mandate affirming the judgment

1 D.I. 94. 2 D.I. 116. 3 D.I. 62. 4 D.I. 990, 92.2

of the Superior Court, finding it “evident that the final judgment of the Superior
Court should be affirmed on the basis of its transcript rulings during trial.” 5

3) On July 3 , 2019, Defendant filed a pro se Motion for Postconviction
Relief and Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 6
4) On July 10, 2019, the Superior Court granted the Motion for
Appointment of Counsel. 7
5) On December 4, 2019, the Office of Conflicts Counsel confirmed that
Christopher Koyst e , Esquire
, was appointed as Defendant’s Rule 61 Counsel (“Rule
61 Counsel”)

. 8

6) On Ja nuary 25, 2021, Rule 61 Counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw
, a Memorandum of Law in support of the motion
, and three appendices pursuant to
Rule 61(e)(6)

. 9 Rule 61 Counsel inform ed the Court that, after a thorough review of
the record, Defendant’s claims lack ed merit and there were no additional meritorious

claims. 10 Rule 61 Counsel indicated that he transmitted a copy of the filing to

Defendant and informed Defendant that Defendant had thirty days to file a

response. 11 On this date, Rule 61 Counsel also filed a Motion to Seal portions of the

5 D.I. 92

- 93; Shov e r v

. State, 217 A.3d 1095 (TABLE), 2019 WL 2206270 (Del. 2019). 6 D.I. 94. 7 D.I. 98. 8 D.I. 102 9 D.I. 116. 10 D.I. 1 16; Mot. Withdraw as Counsel

. 11 Id.3

appendices to the Motion to Withdraw that were within the scope of the Protective
Order entered in Defendant’s case on November 9, 2017

. 12

7) On February 12, 2021, Rule 61 Counsel filed a Motion to Modify th e
November 9, 2017 Protective Order

. 13 On this date
, Rule 61 Counsel also filed a

l etter request to extend the deadline by which Defendant could respond to the Motion
to Withdraw on the basis that Defendant would be unable to perform a meaningful

review o f his case file until after the Motion to Modify Protective Order was

resolved. 14

8) On August 2, 2021, the Court granted the Motion to Modify Protective
Order and ruled that the appendices to Rule 61 Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw be

unsealed for release to D efendant without any redactions required. 15 The Court
further ordered the State to propose redactions to all materials previously provided
to Defendant’s prior attorneys, and that Rule 61 Counsel propose redactions to all
materials not produced by the Sta te that w e re internally produced by defense

counsel. 16

12 D.I. 119. 13 D.I. 118. 14 D.I. 117. 15 D.I. 126; Aug. 18, 2021 Order. 16 Id.4

9) On December 27, 2021, Defendant filed pro se a Motion for

Reconsideration of his Postconviction Motion

. 17

10) On July 21, 2022, Rule 61 Counsel informed the Court that redactions
to internally produced defense materials had been completed. 18

11) On September 22, 2022, the State informed the Court that it completed
redactions to discovery materials originally provided by the State to Defendant’s

trial counsel. 19 The State provided these documents to Andrew Peruchi , Legal

Services Administrator with the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, to transmit

to Defendant

. 20

12) On September 23, 2022, Rule 61 Counsel filed on Defendant’s behalf
, Defendant’s pro se motion for transcripts of jury instructions and motion to compel
, and provided the Court with a letter update of same. 21

13) On December 2, 2022, the Court order ed the State to file a response to

Defendant’s M otion to C ompel by December 30, 2022, after which the C ourt would
set a briefing schedule for Defendant’s Rule 61 Motion and Rule 61 C ounsel’s

Motion to Withdraw. 22 The Court also denied Defendant’s motion for transcripts of

17 D.I. 129. The Court did not take any action on this considering the pending review of sealed materials by counsel

. 18 D.I. 141. 19 D.I. 148. 20 D.I. 149. 21 D.I. 144

- 145. 22 D.I. 151.5

jury instructions as moot because Rule 6 1 Counsel had previously informed the
Court that all missing portions of the trial transcripts had been sent to Defendant

. 23

14) On December 12, 2022, the State requested an extension to respond to
Defendant’s Motion to Compel, which Rule 61 Counsel did not o ppose. 24 The Court
extended the deadline to January 25, 2023. 25

15) The State filed its response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel on
January 25, 2023. 26

16) On February 6 , 2023, the State, in response to the Court’s request,

informed the Court that Rule 61 Counsel had finished providing Defendant with
copies of court transcripts and internally produced defense materials; and that the
State had completed its redactions and sent those materials to the Legal Services

Administrator. 27 The State advised that ther e were no additional documents that

needed to be sent to Defendant. 28

17) On February 8
, 2023, the Court issued an order on Defendant’s Motion
to Compel 29 and set a briefing schedule for the pending Motion for Postconviction

Relief. 30 The Court denied Defenda nt’s Motion to Compel finding that the State and

23 D.I. 145, 152. 24 D.I. 153. 25 D.I. 153. 26 D.I. 154. 27 D.I. 158. 28 Id. 29 D.I. 157. 30 D.I. 156.6

Rule 61 Counsel completed redactions and sent all required discovery to

Defendant

. 31 The Court held, therefore, that the motion was moot. 32 The Court
ordered that Defendant respond to Rule 61 Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw by March

24, 2023 and notified Defendant that his failure to file a response by the deadline

would constitute a waiver

. 33

18) On February 21, 2023, Defendant filed a second pro se Motion to
Compel. 34

19) On April 17, 2023, the Court d enied Defendant’s second Motion to
Compel as moot on the same basis that it denied his first Motion to Compel. 35

20) As of this date, Defendant has not responded to Rule 61 Counsel’s

Motion to Withdraw.

ANALYSIS
21) Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e)(6), postconviction

counsel has a n obligation t o assist the movant in presenting any substantial ground

for relief. 36 If counsel identifies any substantial ground for relief, counsel can file an

amended motion to include those grounds

. 37 Con versely , if counsel “considers the

31 D.I. 157; Feb. 8, 2023 Order. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 D.I. 159. 35 D.I. 161. 36 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(6). 37 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(b)(6).7

movant’s claim to be so lacking in merit that counsel cannot ethically advocate it,
and counsel is not aware of any other substantial ground for relief available to the
movant, counsel may move to wi thdraw.” 38 If counsel moves to withdraw, they must
explain the factual and legal basis for their opinion and provide notice to the movant,
who may respond within thirty days of service , unless the court grants an extension

of this deadline

. 39
22) Here, Rule 61 Counsel concluded that Defendant’s claims lacked
sufficient merit to the point that he could not ethically advocate Defendant’s
position. 40 On this basis, Rule 61 Counsel moved to withdraw. 41

23) The deadline for Defendant to respond to Rule 61 Counsel ’ s Motion to
Withdraw was March 24, 2023. 42 As of the date of this order, Defendant has not
responded to Rule 6 1 Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw , having been in possession of
all required discovery since approximately September 22, 2022

. 43

24) In the Motion to Withdraw, Rule 61 Counsel engage d in a detailed
analysis of Defendant’s claims before concluding that they were devoid of merit. 44

Defendant has elected to not contest Rule 61 Counsel’s position on his Motion for

38 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(7). 39 Id. 40 Mot. Withdraw; D.I. 116. 41 Id. 42 D.I. 156. 43 D.I. 148

- 149. 44 See Mot. Withdraw p. 15

- 24.8

Postconviction Relief. Because Defendant has failed to timely respond to Rule 61
Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw, Defendant is limited to presenting the claims he

made in his pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief. The Court will not consider
any additional claims Defendant made in his Motion for Reconsideration filed on
December 27, 2021.
25) With respect to Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief, Superior
Court Criminal Rule 61(a) states such motions must be based on a sufficient factual
or legal basis. 45 Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(b)(2) requires that postconviction
motions “specify all grounds for relief which are available to the movant . . . and
shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus
specified.” 46 “[F]or a claim of ineffective assis tance of counsel to prevail, the
defendant must make concrete allegations of actual prejudice and substantiate them
or risk summary dismissal.” 47 If the motion clearly shows that the movant is not
entitled to relief, the court may summarily dismiss it. 48
26) A fter a review of the Motion for Postconviction Relief and Motion to
Withdraw, in addition to the applicable legal authorities, it is eviden t that
Defendant’s grounds for relief do not have merit. Defendant claims defense counsel

45 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a). 46 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(b)(2). 47 Dawson v. State , 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996). 48 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5).9

was ineffective for the following reasons: (1) defense counsel failed to perform DNA
testing on certain items at or near the crime scene; (2) the State engaged in
prosecutorial misconduct; and (3) Defendant’s constitutiona l right to confront
witnesses was violated when the FBI agent who recorded witnesses’ statements was
not called to testify. 49

27) With respect to Defendant’s first claim, as discussed in the Motion to
Withdraw, defense counsel’s decision to not test other it ems for DNA was a strategic

decision , which is given substantial deference

. 50 Additionally, Defendant sustained
no prejudice because there was overwhelming evidence to support the jury’s

verdict. 51

28) Defendant’s second claim was previously adjudicated in his direct
appeal , thus Defendant is barred from raising it in these postconviction
proceedings

. 52

29) Defendant’s third claim is also without merit. 53 Defendant’s
constitutional right to confront witnesses was not violated by a witness refreshing

49 D.I. 94. 50 Mot. Withdraw at pp. 15

- 18. See State v. Thomas , 2019 WL 3205772, at *3 (Del. Super. July 16, 2019) (“Trial Counsel could have requested independent testing of the DNA evidence. However, failing to request independent DNA evidence does not make Trial Counsel ineffective.”). 51 Id. ; Staats v. State , 961 A.2d 514, 520

- 521 (Del. 2008) (discussing overwhelming evidence implicatin g defendant in the murder and holding that the “Superior Court properly rejected Staats’ second ground for post

- conviction relief based upon ineffective assistance from his trial counsel.”). 52 Mot. Withdraw at pp. 21

- 22 ; Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4). 53 Mot . Withdraw at pp. 22

- 24.10

his recollection with the FBI agent’s typewritten notes of th at witness’ prior out

- of

court statement because the State was permitted to refresh a witness’ re collection in
this manner pursuant to Delaware Rule of Evidence 612

. 54 It was the witness’ in

court testimony, not the typewritten notes of that witness’ prior statement
, that
constituted the evidence that went to the jury. 55 The Court
, therefore, will en ter an
Order for its summary dismissal. 56

NOW THEREFORE , Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED and

Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief is SUMMARILY

DISMISSED

.
IT IS SO ORDERED

.
/s/ Meghan A. Adams Judge Meghan A. Adams

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Anthony A. Figliola, Esquire Peter W. Veith, Esquire Christopher Koyste, Esquire Carolyn S. Hake, Deputy Attorney General Ryan Shover
, pro se

54 Id. ; D.R.E. 612. 55 Mot. Withdraw at p. 24; D.R.E. 612. 56 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5).