THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

)

)

v. ) I.D. No. 2201002540

)

) 

JOSEPH CASALETTO, )

)

Defendant. )

Date Submitted: August 23, 2023

Date Decided: October 31, 2023

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

POST CONVICTION RELIEF

On this 31st day of October, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant, Joseph 

Casaletto’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Post Conviction Relief (the “Motion”),1and 

the State’s response, it appears to the Court that:

1. On April 6, 2023, Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, a third offense in a lifetime.

2. Following trial, Defendant filed multiple post-trial motions: a Motion

for Judgment of Acquittal, a Motion for a New Trial and a Motion for Certificate of 

Reasonable Doubt.2 All of which were denied by this Court.3 Defendant 

1 State v. Casaletto, Crim. Act. ID No. 2201002540, D.I. 41. 

2 D.I. 29, 31, 32, 33.

3 D.I. 39, 40.
additionally filed a Motion to Restore Bond, as at the time of the guilty verdict, 

Defendant’s bond was revoked.4 At the time of his sentencing, Defendant was 

initially brought before the Court to hear the issue of bond. The Court denied the 

modification of bond from the bench then questioned counsel as to the necessity of 

a pre-sentence investigation, the State was recommending and Court was inclined to 

sentence Defendant to the minimum mandatory time, given the specific facts 

surrounding this offense. Defendant, through counsel, thoroughly considered this 

request and agreed it was appropriate to proceed with sentencing at that time. 

Immediately thereafter, at the same hearing, Defendant was sentenced to two (2) 

years at Level V incarceration, suspended after serving the ninety (90) days 

minimum/mandatory, for twelve (12) months of community supervised probation.5

3. Defendant now moves this Court under Superior Court Criminal Rule 

61 for post-conviction relief, arguing counsel was ineffective for failing to file a 

timely appeal of his conviction. Defense counsel cites a number of reasons for this 

failure and asserts that his client has suffered prejudice due to his failure.6

4. The State, acknowledging the prejudice to Defendant and the fact that 

there is legal precedent supporting a granting of such a motion to allow for a direct 

4 D.I. 30.

5 D.I. 40, 41.

6 D.I. 47.
appeal to be filed, did not oppose Defendant’s motion.7

 Given the State’s grace and 

acknowledgment of the facts presented here, there is no need to evaluate the reasons 

presented to the Court by defense counsel as to why such an appeal was not filed.

5. The Court separately from the State’s acquiescence finds that the 

interests of justice are best served by affording Defendant the opportunity to file a 

direct appeal.8 

6. Therefore, Defendant is to be re-brought before the Court for resentencing in this matter to allow for a direct appeal to be filed. Chambers will be 

in touch with counsel for such scheduling at the earliest convenience of all parties. 

IT SO ORDERED.

_____________________________

Danielle J. Brennan, Judge

Cc: Isaac Rank, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General

Joseph Hurley, Esquire

Original to Criminal Prothonotary

7 D.I. 49.

8 Szublielski v. State, 36 A.2d 350 (TABLE), 2012 WL 218950 (Del. Supr. 2012).