Ploof v. State (2013)
green
· 355 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201320192026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
State v. Thomas (2024)
Ct. Oct. 28, 2024) (citing Neal, 80 A.3d at 946 (“When evaluating an appellate counsel’s conduct for ineffective assistance, we apply the same Strickland framework.”) and Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 831 (Del. 2013) (“Although the United States Supreme Court developed the Strickland test to evaluate trial counsel, we also apply the Strickland test to evaluate appellate counsel’s performance.”)). 63 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof, 75 A.3d at 825 (“Strickland is a two-pro…
“Although the United States Supreme Court developed the Strickland test to evaluate trial counsel, we also apply the Strickland test to evaluate appellate counsel’s performance.”
green
State v. Davis (2024)
Rule 61 Mot. 133 As noted, James Turner, Esq. acted as both Trial and Appellate Counsel and filed a no-merit brief with the Delaware Supreme Court. 134 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . 135 Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 136 Outten v. State, 720 A.2d 547, 557 (Del. 1998). 137 Ploof, 75 A.3d at 825 . 18 t…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Jackson (2022)
In United States v. Cronic, the Court set out three “circumstances that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified.”63 These are: (i) where there was complete denial of counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding;64 (ii) where “counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing”;65 and, (iii) “where counsel is called upon to render assistance under circumstances…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Owens (2021)
R. 61. 33 See, e.g., Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 820 (Del. 2013) (“Rule 61 is intended to correct errors in the trial process . . . .”). 34 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 745 (Del. 1990) (emphasis added). 35 Zebroski v. State, 12 A.3d 1115, 1120 (Del. 2010). 14 reintroduces uncertainty into completed criminal proceedings, the marginal inconvenience to valid convictions is outweighed by the possibility that “extraordinary case[s]” of innocence or egregious error would otherw…
“Rule 61 is intended to correct errors in the trial process . . . .”
green
State v. Mayfield (2024)
Jan. 31, 2017) (cleaned up). 51 See Neal, 80 A.3d at 946 (“When evaluating an appellate counsel’s conduct for ineffective assistance, we apply the same Strickland framework.”); Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 831 (Del. 2013) (“Although the United States Supreme Court developed the Strickland test to evaluate trial counsel, we also apply the Strickland test to evaluate appellate counsel’s performance.”). 52 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof, 75 A.3d at 825 (“Strickland is a tw…
“Although the United States Supreme Court developed the Strickland test to evaluate trial counsel, we also apply the Strickland test to evaluate appellate counsel’s performance.”
green
State v. Mayfield (2024)
Jan. 31, 2017) (cleaned up). 51 See Neal, 80 A.3d at 946 (“When evaluating an appellate counsel’s conduct for ineffective assistance, we apply the same Strickland framework.”); Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 831 (Del. 2013) (“Although the United States Supreme Court developed the Strickland test to evaluate trial counsel, we also apply the Strickland test to evaluate appellate counsel’s performance.”). 52 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof, 75 A.3d at 825 (“Strickland is a tw…
“Although the United States Supreme Court developed the Strickland test to evaluate trial counsel, we also apply the Strickland test to evaluate appellate counsel’s performance.”
green
State v. White (2024)
Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Withdraw at 13. 17 accepted a plea.116 To prevail on his IAC claim, White must show that Trial Counsel’s conduct was objectively unreasonable and, but for Trial Counsel’s conduct, the result would have been different.117 There is no need to address the Strickland objective unreasonableness prong if there was no prejudice to the defendant. 118 The defendant must make “concrete allegations of actual prejudice and substantiate them or risk summary dismi…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Gregg (2021)
Mar. 25, 2015) (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)); Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043 (Del. 2003). 74 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”); State v. Hamby, 2005 WL 914462 , at *2 (Del.
“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Sawyer (2026)
Dec. 16, 2024). 56 Id. at *7 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 57 Motion for Postconviction relief, at 3. 10 For his second and third case, Sawyer entered a plea deal with the state and waived his right to argue discovery deficiencies.
“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Cosme (2026)
It is unclear exactly what Cosme is alleging since he had a preliminary hearing and his attorney cross-examined the 34 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996). 35 Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. 36 Id. at 694. 37 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 8 State’s witness.38 …
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Sharp (2026)
The State presented downloaded iCloud conversations between Sharp and Stalczynski discussing their plans to murder Madison Sparrow and dispose of her body.51 It played a surveillance video from McClarey Elementary School showing Sharp with a bat in his hand near the woods where he bludgeoned Madison Sparrow to death with that bat. 52 Four Sobieski employees testified that there was a young white female and a young black male carrying a shovel and a bucket coming out of 48 St…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Newman (2025)
Ct. Nov. 15, 2005). 27 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 5 5.
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Watson (2025)
Dec. 16, 2024). 32 Id. at *7 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”)). 33 See Watson, 326 A.3d 654 . 34 D.I. 32 p.26-27; 39-40. 12 a plain error standard, but the Trial Counsel’s alleged failures raised in the Rule 61 Motion impacted Watson’s due process rights and preven…
“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Ushler (2025)
Nov. 27, 2023). 35 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”); State v. Hamby, 2005 WL 914462 , at *2 (Del.
“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Hayman-Cooper (2025)
Mar. 25, 2015) (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)); Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043 (Del. 2003). 33 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”); State v. Hamby, 2005 WL 914462 , at *2 (Del.
“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Mayfield (2025)
Failure to do so on either prong will doom the claim and the Court need not address the other.168 In the appellate context, “[t]he [d]efendant must first show that his counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to find arguable issues on appeal – that is, that counsel unreasonably failed to discover nonfrivolous issues and to file a merits brief raising them.”169 Appellate counsel “need not (and should not) raise every nonfrivolous claim, but rather may select from amon…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Lewis (2025)
Barring clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, defendants are bound by the representations they make during their plea colloquy. 26 These statements are “presumed to be truthful”27 and pose a “formidable barrier to a collateral attack on a guilty plea.”28 At no point during his colloquy, as reflected by the Truth-in Sentencing Guilty Plea Form, did Lewis express that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.29 He denied being forced into ple…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Foster (2025)
In his first claim, he fails to identify what “contradicting 43 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 8 testimony” from the police officer he claims Mr. Rago allegedly failed to pursue.
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Allen (2025)
He contends that the missing testimony of both Manoogian and Baldwin that they only saw one individual fleeing and getting into a car would have corroborated his version and contradicted Williams’ testimony.30 27 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 28 Allen’s Reply to State’s …
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Benson (2024)
Mar. 25, 2015) (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)); Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043 (Del. 2003). 97 Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). 98 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant”); State v. Hamby, 2005…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant”
green
State v. Benson (2024)
Mar. 25, 2015) (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)); Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043 (Del. 2003). 94 Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). 95 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant”); State v. Hamby, 2005…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant”
green
State v. Allen (2024)
Although the State asserted in their Response that the Motion is time-barred under Rule 61(i)(1), the State appears to have conceded that it is not in their 120 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 688. 121 Id. at 667-68. 122 Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 123 Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. 124 Id. at 694. 125 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Conkey (2024)
Failure to do so on either prong will doom the claim and the Court need not address the other.24 Further, The Court may enter an order summarily dismissing a PCR motion “if it plainly appears from the [motion] and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief.”25 19 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 20 Id. at 667-68. 21 Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 22 Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. 23 Id. at 694. 24…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Kinderman (2024)
Ct. Nov. 15, 2005). 49 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 50 Super.
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Scaggs (2024)
Scaggs has not attempted to establish the necessary “cause for relief” and “prejudice from [the] violation” to overcome the procedural default bar to relief. 33 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 34 Were it to address the merits of the Motion, it is apparent that in order to…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Guy (2023)
Apr. 1, 2002). 52 Green, 238 A.3d at 174. 53 Alston, 2015 WL 5297709, at *3 (citing Wright, 671 A.2d at 1356). 54 Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). 55 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . 56 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”) 9…
“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Potts (2023)
In United States v. Cronic, the Court set out three “circumstances that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified.”53 These are: (i) where there was complete denial of counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding;54 (ii) where “counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial 51 Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). 5…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant”
green
State v. Seramone (2023)
Ct. Nov. 15, 2005). 85 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 14 not subject to any of the bars of Rule 61(i) and, therefore, the Court addresses it on the merits.
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Cooper (2023)
Failure to do so on either prong will doom the claim and the Court need not address the other.160 In the appellate context, “[t]he [d]efendant must first show that his counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to find arguable issues on appeal – that is, that counsel unreasonably failed to discover nonfrivolous issues and to file a merits brief raising them.”161 Appellate counsel “need not (and should not) raise every nonfrivolous claim, but rather may select from amon…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Cooper (2023)
Failure to do so on either prong will doom the claim and the Court need not address the other.160 In the appellate context, “[t]he [d]efendant must first show that his counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to find arguable issues on appeal – that is, that counsel unreasonably failed to discover nonfrivolous issues and to file a merits brief raising them.”161 Appellate counsel “need not (and should not) raise every nonfrivolous claim, but rather may select from amon…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Lindsey (2023)
Mr. Lindsey’s “Unreasonable Defense” Claims (26) In his first and fourth complaints of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Mr. Lindsey alleges that Mr. Malik failed to: (i) argue that any DNA analysis conducted by the Division of Forensic Science (DFS) was tainted by a firearm ballistics expert formerly employed by the Delaware State Police; (ii) adequately challenge the DNA analysis that identified his DNA on the firearm; (iii) cross-examine the chief investigating off…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant”
green
State v. Galindez (2022)
For that reason, Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim must fail.41 40 See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (“[A] court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies.”); Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not preju…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Broomer (2021)
Failure to do so on either prong will doom the claim and the Court need not address the other.28 In the appellate context, “[t]he [d]efendant must first show that his counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to find arguable issues on appeal – that is, that counsel unreasonably failed to discover nonfrivolous issues and to file a merits brief raising them.”29 Appellate counsel “need not (and should not) raise every 23 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Braxton (2021)
Ct.). 32 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 33 Younger, supra, at 556 . 7 which he put himself, not unprofessional behavior by trial counsel.
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Caulk (2021)
In United States v. Cronic, the Court set out three “circumstances that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified.”66 These are: (i) where there was complete denial of counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding;67 (ii) where “counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing”;68 and, (iii) where “counsel is called upon to render assistance under circumstances…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant”
green
Purnell v. State (2021)
Mar. 1, 2021) (citing Richardson v. State, 3 A.3d 233, 237 (Del. 2010)). 178 Id. (citing Green v. State, 238 A.3d 160 , 173 (Del. 2020)); see also Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015) (“We review ineffective assistance of counsel claims and alleged Brady violations de novo.”); Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 820 (Del. 2013) (“When deciding legal or constitutional questions, we apply a de novo standard of review.”). 71 II.
“When deciding legal or constitutional questions, we apply a de novo standard of review.”
green
State v. Manuel (2020)
Further, there were 8 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 8 no chain of custody or authentication issues because there was no question that the firearm seized from Manuel was the same one admitted into evidence. 10.
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Stevenson (2020)
See Fetters v. State, 436 A.2d 796, 798 (Del. 1981) (quoting Patton v. U.S., 281 U.S. 276, 312 (1930)). 10 See Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 6 The motion for relief under Rule 61 must therefore be DENIED.
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Minatee (2020)
Nor does Mr. Minatee identify what possible “unified theory” Ms. Johnson could have 16 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”); State v. Hamby, 2005 WL 914462 , at *2 (Del.
“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Minatee (2020)
Nor does Mr. Minatee identify what possible “unified theory” Ms. Johnson could have 16 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”); State v. Hamby, 2005 WL 914462 , at *2 (Del.
“Strickland is a two- pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Barksdale (2020)
Mar. 25, 2015) (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)). 54 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”); State v. Hamby, 2005 WL 914462 , at *2 (Del.
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Backus (2020)
The first of those claims is that trial counsel ineffectively litigated the suppression motion due to her failure to prepare for, and address at the hearing, “inconsistent testimony.” Backus claims that the officer’s testimony at the preliminary hearing and suppression hearing differed with respect to who provided the officer with Backus’ registration and proof of insurance and where those items “Id. at 667-68. “ Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). “4 Stricklan…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Campbell (2019)
Regarding Campbell’s assertion that the prosecutor misstated the elements of constructive “ Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. “3 Id. at 694. « Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 8 possession, that not to be true.
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Brown (2019)
Here, Brown cannot demonstrate either that counsel’s performance 2 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 2 Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935, 946 (Del. 2013) (quoting Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285 (2000)). 30 Id. (citing Smith, 528 U.S. at 288 ). 31 Id. 32 Id. 3 Id. at 947 (quot…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Ryle (2019)
Nor is there a doubt that Mr. Ryle received effective assistance of counsel—when he engaged counsel—in al Hopkins v. State, 893 A.2d 922, 927 (Del. 2006) (quoting Carbrera v. State, 840 A.2d 1256, 1263 (Del. 2004); Oliver v. State, 60 A.3d at 1096 (“A trial judge has broad discretion to fashion an appropriate sanction for a discovery violation.”). 38 Seward v. State, 723 A.2d 365, 374 (Del. 1999). 7 Harrington, 562 U.S. at 111 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696 ). 7 Ploof v…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Goodwin (2019)
Ct.). 29 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 6 a 25-year sentence of which he would serve about 18 years, and that would be true whether he pled guilty to manslaughter or murder second degree.
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Adkins (2019)
Mar. 25, 2015) (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)). 19 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”); State v. Hamby, 2005 WL 914462 , at *2 (Del.
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Dillard (2019)
Ct. Oct. 2, 2015). 22 See er'gl/ll‘ v. Slal‘€, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 23 Alston, 2015 WL 5297709, at *3 (citing er`ght, 671 A.2d at 1356 ). 24 strickland 466 U.s. at 697; Ploof v. smie, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Stricklana’ is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 25 Jackson v. State, 654 A.2d 829, 832-33 (Del. 1995) (period for filing motion for postc…
“Stricklana’ is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Dillard (2019)
Ct. Oct. 2, 2015). 22 See Wn'gh¢ v. sm¢e, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (D61. 1996). 23 Als¢on, 2015 WL 5297709 , 61*3 (citing anhr, 671 A.2d ar 1356). 24 Srrickland, 466 U.s. at 697; Ploof v. Srare, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 25 Jackson v. State, 654 A.2d 829, 832-33 (Del. 1995) (period for filing motion for postconvicti…
“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”
green
State v. Dillard (2019)
Slal‘€, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (D€l. 1996). 23 Alston, 2015 WL 5297709, at *3 (citing Wright, 671 A.2d at 1356 ). 24 Stricklana', 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Stricklana' is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”). 23 Jackson v. State, 654 A.2d 829, 832-33 (Del. 1995) (period for filing motion for postconviction relief begins to run when…
“Stricklana' is a two-pronged test, and there is no need to examine whether an attorney performed deficiently if the deficiency did not prejudice the defendant.”