green
Positive treatment
15.7 score
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Davis
May 23, 2012) (citing Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102-110 (2011)). 125 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . 126 See Salih, 962 A.2d at 257; see also Albury, 551 A.2d at 59 . 16 whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.”127 C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Smith
Accordingly, Smith’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are without merit.71 67 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . 68 See Salih, 962 A.2d at 257; see also Albury, 551 A.2d at 59 . 69 State v. Wright, 653 A.2d 288, 295 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. White
May 23, 2012) (citing Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102-110 (2011)). 108 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . 109 See Salih, 962 A.2d at 257; see also Albury, 551 A.2d at 59 . 110 Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803, 840 (Del. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). 16 C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. McGriff
Under Rule 61, counsel may move to withdraw if they find 49 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . 50 See Salih, 962 A.2d at 257; see also Albury, 551 A.2d at 59 . 51 State v. Wright, 653 A.2d 288, 295 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Perkins
May 23, 2012) (citing Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102-110 (2011)). 131 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . 132 See Salih, 962 A.2d at 257; see also Albury, 551 A.2d at 59 . 133 State v. Wright, 653 A.2d 288, 295 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Webb v. State
July 9, 2015) (rejecting claim that 2002 conviction used to enhance sentence for 2004 conviction gave defendant standing to challenge the 2002 conviction under Rule 61 even though defendant was no longer in custody on sentence imposed for 2002 conviction). 6 See, e.g., Webb v. State, 2008 WL 4511829, at *1 (Del.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Wharton
A. Failing to File a Motion to Recuse Wharton argues that because the Trial Judge sentenced his co-defendant the 66 Id. at 689 . 67 Id; see Salih, 962 A.2d at 257. 68 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 . 69 Purnell v. State, 106 A.3d 332 (Del. 2014) (inner citations and quotations omitted). 70 D.I. 92.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
WILLIAM JOSEPH WEBB, JR., Petitioner Below-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondent Below-Appellee.
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondent Below-Appellee.
159, 2008.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Oct 8, 2008.
Berger, Jacobs, and Ridgely, Justices.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
JACK B. JACOBS, Justice.
This 8th day of October 2008, after careful consideration of the parties' briefs and the record below, we find it manifest that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court's well-reasoned decision dated March 5, 2008. Webb's fourth motion for modification of sentence was untimely, and we find no error in the Superior Court's conclusion that Webb had failed to establish "extraordinary circumstances" sufficient to warrant consideration of his motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(b).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.