State v. Slade

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE v. LINNARD L. SLADE, Defendant

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, Kent County

Date published: Aug 14, 2002

IK97-02-0093-R1, IK97-02-0094-R1, IK97-05-0141-R1 through IK97-05-0144-R1 ID No. 9701022584 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2002)

Opinion

IK97-02-0093-R1, IK97-02-0094-R1, IK97-05-0141-R1 through IK97-05-0144-R1 ID No. 9701022584

Submitted: August 8, 2002

Decided: August 14, 2002

HENRY DUPONT RIDGELY, President Judge.

ORDER

On this 14th day of August, 2002, upon consideration of the defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, and the record in this case, it appears that:

(1) On January 20, 1999 the Defendant, Linnard L. Slade ("Slade") was found guilty by a jury as charged of two counts of Delivery of Cocaine, 16 Del. C. § 4751; one count of Possession of Marijuana, 16 Del. C. § 4754; one count of Possession of Cocaine, 16 Del. C. § 4753; and two counts of Conspiracy in the Second Degree, 11 Del. C. § 512. On January 20, 1999 the Court sentenced Slade to 10 years in prison followed by probation.

A timely notice of appeal was filed with the Delaware Supreme Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Slade's conviction and sentence.¹ Next, Slade filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. In his motion, Slade alleges five grounds for relief including ineffective assistance of counsel.

1 Slade v. State, Del. Supr., No. 45, 1999, Berger, J. (Jan. 24, 2000) (ORDER).

(2) The Court referred this motion to Superior Court Commissioner Andrea Maybee Freud pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendation concluding that the motion for postconviction relief should be dismissed as procedurally barred by Rule 61(i)(3) for failure to prove cause and prejudice and Rule 61(i)(4) as previously adjudicated.

(3) No objections to the Report have been filed.

NOW THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for the reasons stated in the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation dated July 24, 2002,

IT IS ORDERED that:

(A) The well-reasoned Commissioner's Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court;

(B) The defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is DISMISSED.