BROADCASTS.com

b'

\\nInsurance Fraudster and Killer Wastes the Court\'s Time With Frivolous \\nAction\\n\\nPro Se Party Has a Fool for a Client\\n\\nIn State Of Delaware v. Ryan Shover, ID No. 1511001640, Superior Court \\nof Delaware (May 15, 2023) the appellate court dealt with proceedings by\\n convicted murderer and insurance fraudster, Ryan Shover who acted as \\nhis own attorney.\\n\\nF\\nACTS\\n\\nRyan Shover was found guilty of two counts of Murder First Degree, two \\ncounts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a \\nFelony, First Degree Conspiracy, and Insurance Fraud. \\xa0The Supreme Court\\n of Delaware issued its Mandate affirming the judgment of the Superior \\nCourt. Defendant then filed a pro se Motion for Post-conviction Relief \\nand Motion for Appointment of Counsel and the Superior Court granted the\\n Motion for Appointment of Counsel.\\n\\nThe appointed Counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw and informed the Court \\nthat, after a thorough review of the record, Defendant\'s claims lacked \\nmerit and there were no additional meritorious claims that he could \\nethically present.\\n\\nDefendant then filed pro se a Motion for Reconsideration of his \\nPost-conviction Motion and a second pro se Motion to Compel. The Court \\ndenied Defendant\'s second Motion to Compel as moot on the same basis \\nthat it denied his first Motion to Compel.\\n\\nANALYSIS\\n\\nAppointed Counsel advised the court that he concluded that Defendant\'s \\nclaims lacked sufficient merit to the point that he could not ethically \\nadvocate Defendant\'s position. In the Motion to Withdraw, appointed \\nCounsel engaged in a detailed analysis of Defendant\'s claims before \\nconcluding that they were devoid of merit.\\n\\nWith respect to Defendant\'s Motion for Post-conviction Relief, Superior \\nCourt Criminal Rule 61(a) states such motions must be based on a \\nsufficient factual or legal basis. Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(b)(2)\\n requires that post-conviction motions "specify all grounds for relief \\nwhich are available to the movant . . . and shall set forth in summary \\nform the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified."\\n\\nAfter a review of the Motion for Post-conviction Relief and Motion to \\nWithdraw, in addition to the applicable legal authorities, it was \\nevident to the appellate court that Defendant\'s grounds for relief had \\nno merit.\\n\\nIn addition, the court concluded that Defendant\'s constitutional right \\nto confront witnesses was not violated by a witness refreshing his \\nrecollection with the FBI agent\'s typewritten notes of that witness\' \\nprior out of court statement because the State was permitted to refresh a\\n witness\' recollection in this manner pursuant to Delaware Rule of \\nEvidence 612. It was the witness\' in court testimony, not the \\ntypewritten notes of that witness\' prior statement, that constituted the\\n evidence that went to the jury.\\n\\nTherefore, appointed Counsel\'s Motion to Withdraw was granted and \\nDefendant\'s Pro Se Motion for Post-conviction Relief was summarily \\ndismissed.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nCourts tend to protect the rights of a pro se party, even a convicted \\nmurderer, but should reconsider that tendency. The Delaware court \\nprovided an attorney to deal with the defendant\'s motion for \\npost-conviction relief only to have that lawyer move to be relieved \\nbecause there was no basis in fact or law for the relief sought and it \\nwould be unethical for counsel to represent Ryan Shover. Bending over \\nbackwards the appellate court considered the spurious arguments, wrote a\\n detailed opinion, and denied relief. Shoyer will serve his full \\nsentence.\\n\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.\\n\\n\\n