IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) 

) 

) 

v. ) Case Nos.: 1406017459

) 1508021812

) 

) 

DAYMERE WISHER, ) 

) 

Defendant. )

Date Submitted: October 17, 2023 

Date Decided: January 16, 2024

ORDER DISMISSING DAYMERE WISHER’S

MOTIONS FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF

Upon consideration of Defendant Daymere Wisher’s Motions for 

Postconviction Relief, Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, statutory and decisional 

law, and the entire record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:

1. On February 22, 2017, Mr. Wisher pled guilty to second-degree

murder in Case No. 1406017459 (“Case A”) and manslaughter, first-degree 

attempted robbery, and second-degree conspiracy in Case No. 1508021812

(“Case B”).

1

1 Docket Item A, (“D.I.A”) 75; Docket Item B, (“D.I.B”) 64.
2

2. Following a presentence investigation, on July 21, 2017, Mr. Wisher 

was sentenced as follows: (i) fifteen years Level V for second-degree murder; (ii)

five years Level V for manslaughter; (iii) fifteen years Level V, suspended after 

five years for decreasing levels of supervision for first-degree attempted robbery; 

(iv) and two years Level V suspended for two years at Level III for second-degree 

conspiracy.

2

3. On April 18, 2022, Mr. Wisher filed a pro se motion for 

postconviction relief claiming Bribery, Violation of Due Process Law, Coerced 

Confession of a Guilty Plea, and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

3

 Specifically, 

Mr. Wisher contends trial counsel told him that he would only receive ten years 

and that he pleaded guilty based upon counsel’s inaccurate advice.4 In addition, 

2 D.I.A 78; D.I.B 66. Mr. Wisher’s conviction became final thirty days after this 

Court imposed its sentence since Mr. Wisher did not file a direct appeal. Prior to 

being sentenced, by way of counsel, Mr. Wisher filed a Motion to Withdraw his 

Guilty Plea which this Court denied. D.I.A 71; D.I.B 58. At the time, Mr. Wisher 

wanted the Court to consider an argument of ineffectiveness against his trial counsel. 

In response, trial counsel moved to withdraw as counsel. See D.I.A 105 at 2; D.I.B 

100 at 2. Mr. Wisher filed an additional Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, pro se, as 

well as a Motion for Review of Sentence, which were also denied. Mr. Wisher 

subsequently appealed this Court’s denial to the Delaware Supreme Court. On 

January 12, 2023, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a mandate affirming this 

Court’s denial of Mr. Wisher’s Motion for Review of Sentence. D.I.A 100; D.I.B 

95.

3 D.I.A 88; D.I.B 80. The sentencing judge retired from the bench on December 31, 

2022. Mr. Wisher’s Motion for Postconviction Relief was assigned to this Judge on 

March 21, 2023. D.I.A 102; D.I.B 97.

4 See Id. at 3-4.
3

Mr. Wisher asserts a witness gave a favorable statement on his behalf, but he was 

still charged after advising trial counsel of his innocence.

5

4. Later, Mr. Wisher withdrew his motion for postconviction relief 

from Case B and replaced it with a new motion for postconviction relief (“Case 

B Motion”). As to the Case B Motion, filed on July 15, 2022, Mr. Wisher asserts

newly discovered evidence in the form of a recorded statement on a USB drive

and continues to claim that had he known this information, he would have gone 

to trial.6 In particular, Mr. Wisher contends Karel Blaylock, “a key witness” who 

testified in an unrelated case, “was offered a deal to bear false witness.”7 

5. Mr. Wisher subsequently replied to his Case B Motion on July 7, 

2023, requesting an evidentiary hearing along with allegations that the State 

withheld information under Brady.

8

 He also asserts that any constitutional 

5 See Id. at 4. 

6 D.I.B 89. The recording contains a conversation between two individuals one of 

which claims that he received a deal from the State in exchange for testifying in an 

unrelated case. The recording was submitted separately from Mr. Wisher’s Case B 

Motion by an anonymous individual. After briefing was complete, the Court 

discovered that trial counsel and the State were not served with the recorded 

statement. In order to consider the recording, the Court requested Mr. Wisher serve 

trial counsel and the State. Mr. Wisher advised that he was unable to serve the 

recordings and requested the Court decide the Case B Motion without considering 

the recording. D.I.B 106.

7 D.I.B 89. 

8 D.I.B 104. Mr. Wisher contends new evidence exists based upon arguments made 

in trial counsel’s Motion to Sever which asserted that the State identified another 

person as the shooter. The Motion to Sever, however, was filed before Mr. Wisher 

accepted the plea agreement with the State on January 26, 2017. Id. ¶¶19-21.
4

violation overrides any procedural bar where there is a colorable claim on the 

face of the record.

9

 

6. A motion for postconviction relief can be procedurally barred for 

time limitations, successive motions, procedural defaults, and former 

adjudications.10 If a procedural bar exists, the Court will not consider the merits 

of the postconviction claim unless the defendant can establish that the procedural 

bars are inapplicable under Rule 61(d)(2).11 Before addressing the merits of any 

claim of postconviction relief, the Court must determine whether the Motion is 

procedurally barred under Rule 61(i).12

7. The first procedural bar relates to the timing limitation on 

postconviction relief. Under Rule 61(i)(1), a motion for postconviction relief 

may not be filed more than one year after the judgment of conviction is final.

13

 

A defendant’s conviction becomes final thirty days after this Court imposes its 

9

 D.I.B 104. Webster v. State, 604 A.2d 1364 (Del. 1992) (holding petitioner’s 

allegations of an improper plea colloquy raised a colorable claim of constitution 

violation sufficient to avoid time limitation bar). Defendant’s authority is no longer 

good law as Rule 61 has since been amended to exclude the “manifest injustice” 

language in which Webster relies upon. See Order Amending Rule 61 of the Superior 

Court Rules of Criminal Procedure (Del. Super. June 4, 2014). 

10 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1)-(4). 

11

 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990) (concluding defendants 

postconviction claims were procedurally barred and, therefore, did not address the 

merits of the issues contained in the postconviction motion); see also, State v. Taylor, 

2016 WL 1714142, at *3 (Del. Super. April 26, 2016). 

12 Id. 

13 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(l). 
5

sentence.14 Where a defendant files a direct appeal, the conviction becomes final 

when the Delaware Supreme Court issues a mandate or order finally determining 

the case on direct review.15 Here, Mr. Wisher’s motion is untimely. Mr. Wisher 

also did not directly appeal his judgment of conviction to the Delaware Supreme 

Court. Therefore, his conviction was final on August 20, 2017. Mr. Wisher filed 

his motion for postconviction relief in Case A on April 18, 2022, and in Case B 

on July 15, 2022, making each motion approximately five years after his 

conviction. Consequently, both motions are untimely for purposes of 

postconviction relief. 

8. Though Mr. Wisher contends new evidence exists, the exception 

under Rule 61(d)(2)(i) that would allow its admission is inapplicable since Mr. 

Wisher was not convicted after trial but rather entered a guilty plea. Since Rule 

61 does not include language relating to newly discovered evidence and 

subsequent motions after a defendant pleads guilty, the motions for 

postconviction relief are procedurally barred. 16 

9. As to Mr. Wisher’s request for an evidentiary hearing, the decision 

whether to hold an evidentiary hearing is a determination made by the trial 

14 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m)(1).

15 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m)(2).

16 State v. Smith, 2022 WL 601865, at *3 (Del. Super. Feb. 25, 2022) (holding that 

because the movant pled guilty, “that alone ends the inquiry” as to whether he can 

avail himself of Rule 61(d)(2)). 
6

court.

17

 “If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not desirable, the judge shall 

make such disposition of the motion as justice dictates.”

18

 Here, the alleged 

Brady violations and evidentiary issues presented in Mr. Wisher’s motions are 

without merit. As note above, the new evidence was either previously raised in 

his Motion to Sever or unrelated to Defendant’s cases.

19

 After considering

briefing from the parties and the record, the Court finds an evidentiary hearing 

undesirable.

For the foregoing reasons, it appears from the motions and the record that 

Mr. Wisher is not entitled to postconviction relief. Accordingly, each of Mr. 

Wisher’s motions is DISMISSED and his request for an evidentiary hearing is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Patricia A. Winston

Patricia A. Winston, Judge

 

Original to Prothonotary (Criminal Division) 

Cc: Daniel McBride, Esquire, Department of Justice

John Downs, Esquire, Department of Justice

Patrick Collins, Esquire

Daymere Wisher, Pro Se, SBI#: 00633616

17 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h)(1)-(3).

18 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h)(3). 

19 D.I.B 104 ¶¶19-21. 
7