State v. Shah
0002019767
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 5, 2018Background
- Defendant Kushal Shah (f/k/a Gerron M. Lindsey) pleaded guilty but mentally ill in June 2002 to first‑degree murder.
- Since conviction, Shah filed numerous postconviction motions, habeas petitions, appeals, and other filings; the Superior Court previously barred him from filing further postconviction motions without leave after finding many were repetitive and meritless.
- Shah filed a twelfth Rule 61 motion (June 14, 2018) claiming newly discovered evidence: a Wilmington police officer (Caro Spearman) was identified in the live lineup as the shooter, discovered via FOIA/newspaper.
- Shah also moved for appointment of counsel and later sought to amend to invoke Lee v. United States as retroactively applicable to reopen prior postconviction motions.
- The Commissioner found Shah’s twelfth motion procedurally barred (untimely and waived), concluded it did not meet the standard for newly discovered evidence or a new retroactive rule, and recommended denial of leave to file, summary dismissal, denial of appointed counsel, and denial of the amendment as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural timeliness of Rule 61 motion | State: motion is untimely under Rule 61(i)(1) (filed >1 year after conviction final) | Shah: newly discovered evidence justifies consideration | Held: Untimely; filed ~16 years after conviction became final — procedurally barred |
| Waiver of challenge to lineup/identification | State: Shah knew identification weaknesses before plea; claims now are waived under Rule 61(i)(3) | Shah: FOIA/newspaper revealed a police officer (Spearman) was identified in live lineup, affecting reliability | Held: Waived — prior knowledge of non‑identifications and two witnesses identified Shah; profession of identified person irrelevant |
| Newly discovered evidence standard / actual innocence | State: Shah fails to plead particularized new reliable evidence showing actual innocence or that evidence could not have been discovered earlier | Shah: the identification of a police officer in the lineup is new and undermines reliability | Held: Fails standard — evidence not newly available, does not create strong inference of actual innocence |
| Applicability of Lee v. United States retroactively | State: Lee did not establish a new retroactive constitutional rule applicable here; Lee applied Strickland to unique facts (deportation) | Shah: Lee should allow reconsideration of earlier postconviction motions (first and eighth) | Held: Lee not retroactively applicable to Shah’s plea context; Amendment denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (procedural screening of postconviction motions and requirement to consider procedural bars before merits)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (application of Strickland to counsel’s erroneous advice about deportation; not a new retroactive rule for plea cases)