ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Delaware

2026Ineffective Assistance of Counsel To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Harper must meet the two-prong test established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington.30 Under Strickland, a defendant must show (1) “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness;”31 and (2) “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”32 A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome.”33 26 Super C

2026Ineffective Assistance of Counsel To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Harper must meet the two-prong test established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington.30 Under Strickland, a defendant must show (1) “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness;”31 and (2) “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”32 A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome.”33 26 Super C

2026In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show: (1) “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 54 A (i) Pleads with particularity that new evidence exists which creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted; or (ii) Pleads with particularity a claim that a new rule of constitut

2026Ct. Crim R. 61(a)(1). 24 Maxion v. State 686 A.2.d 148, 150 (Del. 1996) (citing Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990)). 25 Super Ct. Crim R. 61(i)(1). 6 (2) repetitive;26 (3) procedurally defaulted;27 or (4) formerly adjudicated.28 “Absent extraordinary circumstances, an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim cannot be asserted in the proceedings leading to a judgment of conviction.”29 Harper’s motion is timely, and none of Rule 61’s procedural bars preclude consideration for his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

2025R. 61(d)(2)(i) and (ii). 163 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 164 Id. at 667-68. 165 Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 166 Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. 167 Id. at 694. 26 succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

2025Ct. Nov. 15, 2005). 30 See Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). -8- tactics” engaged by trial or plea counsel.31 Too, one claiming ineffective assistance “must make specific allegations of how defense counsel’s conduct actually prejudiced the proceedings, rather than mere allegations of ineffectiveness.”32 And an inmate must satisfy the proof requirements of both prongs—deficient attorney performance and resulting prejudice—to succeed in making an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

2025Mar. 25, 2015) (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)); Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043 (Del. 2003). 30 Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). 31 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 58 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)). 32 Harden v. State, 180 A.3d 1037, 1045 (Del 2018). -7- there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”33 And when addressing the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel t

2025To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a movant must establish his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated under the two-part test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington102 as adopted by the state of Delaware.103 Under the Strickland test, the movant must show “first, that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and, second, that the deficiencies in counsel’s from the plea agreement and the parties considered his potential self-defense claims when crafting the heavily negotiated

2026“It is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.’”58 The “court must consider the ‘totality of the evidence,’ and ‘must 53 Id. 54 Id. at 694 . 55 Id. at 697 . 56 Id. at 693 . 57 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996). 58 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104 (2011) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 ). 9 ask if the [movant] has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.’”59 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a question of whether Trial Counsel

2026“It is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.”’37 The “court must consider the ‘totality of the evidence,’ and ‘must ask if the [movant] has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.”’38 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a question of whether trial counsel’s actions were adequate.39 A review of counsel’s representation is subject 34 Id. at 697 . 35 Id. at 693 . 36 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996). 37 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,

2026Ct. July 1, 2024), . 23 Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935, 941 (Del. 2013); see generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). -6- assistance of counsel must demonstrate that: (i) his defense counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (ii) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of his proceedings would have been different—often referred to as the “prejudice prong.”24 An inmate must satisfy the proof requirements of both prongs—deficient performance and prejudice—to succeed in making an ineffective assistance of couns

2026R. 61(i)(3). 8 In Strickland v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court established the standard for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim brought by a criminal defendant.45 The standard is a two-prong test requiring both prongs be met before a judgment is set aside. 46 The Strickland Court emphasizes the importance of the reviewing court’s responsibility to make an ineffective assistance determination without “the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” 47 T

2026In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show: (1) “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 54 A (i) Pleads with particularity that new evidence exists which creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted; or (ii) Pleads with particularity a claim that a new rule of constitut

2026In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show: (1) “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 37 “The standard for judging counsel's representation is a most deferential one,”38 and there is a strong presumption that counsel’s legal representation was competent and fell within the “wide range” of reasonable professional assistance.39 Trial counsel “observed the

2026Ineffective Assistance of Counsel To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Turner must meet the two-prong test established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington. 51 Under Strickland, a defendant must show (1) “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness;”52 and (2) “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the 45 Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 820 (Del. 2013). 46 Super.

2024ANALYSIS The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions. 114 Our Court has time and again reiterated that the right to counsel is the bedrock of our adversary system.115 Under Strickland v. Washington, a criminal defendant pursuing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must show two things: (1) that his counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense.116 Defense counsel is deficient where counsel’s representation falls below an objective standar

2026In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show: (1) “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 54 A (i) Pleads with particularity that new evidence exists which creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted; or (ii) Pleads with particularity a claim that a new rule of constitut

2026In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show: (1) “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 54 A (i) Pleads with particularity that new evidence exists which creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted; or (ii) Pleads with particularity a claim that a new rule of constitut

2020Upon Trial Counsel’s recollection of the evidence and trial strategy, Trial Counsel did not believe that there was a need to further investigate the crime scene in order to present an effective strategy at trial.“ In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and the deficiencies in counsel’s representation caused the defendant actual prejudice.'° When reviewing such a claim, the Court must analyze counsel’s conduct based upon all of the facts of the case and avoid pe

2020When reviewing such a claim, the Court must analyze counsel’s conduct based upon all of the facts of the case and avoid peering through the lens of hindsight.” Defendant must show that any alleged errors were so serious that his counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.”7 “A defense attorney may not be faulted for a reasonable miscalculation or lack of foresight or for failing to prepare for what appear to be remote possibilities.”** Great weight and deference are given to tactical decisions by the trial attorney and counsel cannot be deemed

2026“It is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.’”58 The “court must consider the ‘totality of the evidence,’ and ‘must 53 Id. 54 Id. at 694 . 55 Id. at 697 . 56 Id. at 693 . 57 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996). 58 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104 (2011) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 ). 9 ask if the [movant] has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.’”59 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a question of whether Trial Counsel

2026“It is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.”’37 The “court must consider the ‘totality of the evidence,’ and ‘must ask if the [movant] has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.”’38 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a question of whether trial counsel’s actions were adequate.39 A review of counsel’s representation is subject 34 Id. at 697 . 35 Id. at 693 . 36 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996). 37 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,

2023In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must meet the two-pronged Strickland test by showing that: (1) counsel performed at a level “below an objective standard of reasonableness” and that, (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.40 The first prong requires the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that defense counsel was not reasonably competent, while the second prong requires him to show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for defense counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have

2019R. 61(i)(5) and (d)(2)(i), (ii). any alleged errors, deficiencies or defects occurring prior to the entry of the plea."3 Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s claims for relief are deemed waived and/or barred for his failure to present them in the original proceedings and he has not established an exception warranting relief.'4 With respect to Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, such claims cannot be raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings and are properly presented by way of a motion for postconviction relief.'> In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counse

2025Mar. 25, 2015) (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)); Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043 (Del. 2003). 30 Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). 31 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 58 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)). 32 Harden v. State, 180 A.3d 1037, 1045 (Del 2018). -7- there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”33 And when addressing the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel t

2023Mar. 25, 2015) (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)); Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043 (Del. 2003). 38 Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). -11- (25) An inmate must prove both deficient attorney performance and resulting prejudice to succeed in making an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

2021However, ineffective assistance of counsel claims cannot be raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings and are properly presented by way of a motion for postconviction relief. 9 The fact that counsel did not raise an argument or objection during the trial, or on appeal, does not bar a defendant from alleging that counsel’s failure amounted to ineffective assistance. 10 In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and the deficiencies in counsel’s representation c

2020Ineffective assistance of counsel claims cannot be raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings and are properly presented by way of a motion for postconviction relief."4 In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and the deficiencies in counsel’s representation caused the defendant actual prejudice.'!° To prevail in the context of a case involving a guilty plea, Defendant must show that but for counsel’s errors, there is a reasonable probability that he would no

2025Mar. 25, 2015) (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)); Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043 (Del. 2003). 30 Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). 31 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 58 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)). 32 Harden v. State, 180 A.3d 1037, 1045 (Del 2018). -7- there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”33 And when addressing the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel t

2023Ct. July 16, 2018) (D.I. 33) (seeking habitual sentencing for the PFBPP conviction only) (A-479-534). -19- (41) Strickland’s framework is also used to analyze any ineffective assistance of counsel claim challenging performance in relation to a guilty plea74 or a sentencing hearing.75 When addressing the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel test in the context of a challenged guilty plea, an inmate must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”76 When addressing th

2025June 3, 2003). 39 Hoskins v. State, 102 A.3d 724, 729 (Del. 2014) (holding a direct appeal for plain error does not preclude an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Rule 61(i)(4)). 40 Super.

2017This contention is procedurally barred under Rule 61(1)(4) as formerly adjudicated 16 Motion at 3. 17 See Hoskins v. State, 102 A.3d 724, 729-30 (Del. 2014) (holding neither law of case doctrine nor Rule 61(1)(4) barred defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in postconviction motion; finding of no “plairi error” by trial counsel on direct appeal is “a separate issue” from an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

2025Not only was the Court unaware of any such allegations so that it 8 Id. at 1232 (citing Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309 (Del. 1988)). 9 D.I. 12, Plea Agreement and Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form. 10 D.I. 12, Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form. 11 See Miller, 840 A.2d at 1232 (holding defendant’s guilty plea waived his right to bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on actions that occurred before the plea was entered and that would not have changed defendant’s decision to enter the plea.) 12 D.I. 17. had no impact on the ultimate sentence, but the sentence imposed was lim

2025Not only was the Court unaware of any such allegations so that it 8 Id. at 1232 (citing Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309 (Del. 1988)). 9 D.I. 12, Plea Agreement and Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form. 10 D.I. 12, Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form. 11 See Miller, 840 A.2d at 1232 (holding defendant’s guilty plea waived his right to bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on actions that occurred before the plea was entered and that would not have changed defendant’s decision to enter the plea.) 12 D.I. 17. had no impact on the ultimate sentence, but the sentence imposed was lim

2024VI. 115 See, e.g., Reed v. State, 258 A.3d 807 , 821 n.55 (Del. 2021) (citing Purnell v. State, 254 A.3d 1053 , 1104 (Del. 2021) (citing cases)). 116 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 117 See Starling, 130 A.3d at 325 (citing Gattis v. State, 697 A.2d 1174, 1178 (Del. 1997)). 24 assistance.118 To prove that trial counsel was deficient, a criminal defendant must show that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.119 A defendant bears a heavy burden to overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonab

2023Oct. 30, 2023) (ORDER) (quoting Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 , 389 (2010)). 12 Green, 238 A.3d at 174. 13 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ; Gattis v. State, 697 A.2d 1174, 1178 (Del. 1997) (citing Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996)). 6 makes a strategic choice ‘after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options,’ that decision is virtually unchallengeable[.]”14 (10) To establish prejudice, a “defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

2022The Court will first address the one claim raised in the Amended Motion and then address the pro se claims. 31 See, e.g., Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994) (internal citations omitted). 9 different.”32 As to the first prong, there is a “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.”33 And a fair assessment of counsel’s performance should avoid the “distorting effects of hindsight” and should “evaluate the [challenged] conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.”34 As to the second prong, a defendant must “make, an

2020The Court refused to deal with this claim and referred the Defendant to the traditional means of attacking a 3 See Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994); Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 745 (Del. 1990); Duross v. State, 494 A.2d 1265, 1267 (Del. 1985). 3 conviction with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim: the Rule 61 process in Superior Court.

2025Mar. 25, 2015) (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)); Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043 (Del. 2003). 30 Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). 31 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 58 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)). 32 Harden v. State, 180 A.3d 1037, 1045 (Del 2018). -7- there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”33 And when addressing the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel t

2023Ct. July 16, 2018) (D.I. 33) (seeking habitual sentencing for the PFBPP conviction only) (A-479-534). -19- (41) Strickland’s framework is also used to analyze any ineffective assistance of counsel claim challenging performance in relation to a guilty plea74 or a sentencing hearing.75 When addressing the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel test in the context of a challenged guilty plea, an inmate must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”76 When addressing th

2025Mar. 25, 2015) (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)); Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043 (Del. 2003). 30 Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). 31 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 58 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)). 32 Harden v. State, 180 A.3d 1037, 1045 (Del 2018). -7- there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”33 And when addressing the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel t

2025Ct. 2022), aff’d, 299 A.3d 1 (Del. 2023); Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . 173 Starling, 130 A.3d at 325 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S at 694). 63 requires a ‘substantial,’ not just ‘conceivable,’ likelihood of a different result.”174 “We may dispose of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on the absence of sufficient prejudice without addressing the performance prong if, in fact[,] prejudice is lacking.”175 III A In his lead argument on appeal, Cooke contends that his second-trial counsel “were ineffective for failing to explore his competency [to stand trial], and the trial court err

2024This appeal followed. (6) We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for postconviction relief for abuse of discretion.4 We review questions of law de novo.5 The procedural requirements of Rule 61 are applied before consideration of the merits of any underlying claims for postconviction relief.6 As the Superior Court recognized, the procedural bars of Rule 61 do not bar a timely claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.7 To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that: (i) his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reas

2023Therefore, we will address the substance of Wright’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. (8) To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant “must show both deficient performance by counsel and prejudice.”6 If a defendant has not suffered prejudice, this Court may dispose of an ineffective assistance claim without addressing counsel’s performance.7 To establish prejudice, a “defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 8 A 3 Green v. State, 238 A.3d

2026To satisfy the performance prong, Mr. Earl must show that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness—such “that no reasonable lawyer would have conducted the defense as his lawyer did.”27 There is always a strong presumption that counsel’s representation was reasonable.28 “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance [is] highly deferential.”29 It is now well-accepted, that where “an attorney makes a strategic choice after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options, the presumption that an attorney acted reasonably is 24 Strickland, 466 U.S. a

2025Mar. 31, 2025) (citing Cooke, 2025 WL 16395 , at *24). 56 Cooke, 2025 WL 16395 , at *24 (quoting Green, 238 A.3d at 178). 57 Id. 58 Green, 238 A.3d at 173 (citing Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 , 124 (2011)). 59 Cooke, 2025 WL 16395 , at *24 (quoting Purnell v. State, 106 A.3d 337, 342 (Del. 2014)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 21 examining counsel’s defense after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable.”60 To that end, in evaluating an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we must make “every effort to eliminate the distorti

2022To demonstrate ineffective assistance, a defendant must show “first, that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and, second, that the deficiencies in counsel's representation caused him substantial prejudice.”25 This is a “heavy burden.”26 “Mere allegations of ineffectiveness will not suffice.”27 A finding of ineffective assistance must be “compelled” by the record.28 To be ineffective, counsel’s assistance must “so undermine[] the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.”29 The

2022To demonstrate ineffective assistance, a defendant must show “first, that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and, second, that the deficiencies in counsel's representation caused him substantial prejudice.”21 This is a “heavy burden.”22 “Mere allegations of ineffectiveness will not suffice.” 23 A finding of ineffective assistance must be “compelled” by the record. 24 To be ineffective, counsel’s assistance must “so undermine[] the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.”25 Th

2022Put yet another way, the failure to assert an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction is not a procedural default.” (footnote omitted)); see also Duross v. State, 494 A.2d 1265, 1269 (Del. 1985) (observing that motions for post-conviction relief afford “proper review” of ineffective assistance claims); see generally Guy v. State, 82 A.3d 710, 715 (Del. 2013) (“[I]n a jurisdiction like Delaware, where ineffective assistance of trial counsel may not be raised on direct appeal, the first post-conviction proceeding is in many ways the equiva

2021Put yet another way, the failure to assert an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction is not a procedural default.” (footnote omitted)); see also Duross v. State, 494 A.2d 1265, 1269 (Del. 1985) (observing that motions for post-conviction relief afford “proper review” of ineffective assistance claims); see generally Guy v. State, 82 A.3d 710, 715 (Del. 2013) (“[I]n a jurisdiction like Delaware, where ineffective assistance of trial counsel may not be raised on direct appeal, the first post-conviction proceeding is in many ways the equiva

2020See n.1, supra. -4- (10) An inmate who claims ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that: (a) his defense counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (b) there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 11 When addressing the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel test in the context of a challenged guilty plea, a defendant must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insi

2020An inmate who claims ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that: (a) his defense counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (b) there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.49 When addressing the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel test in the context of a challenged guilty plea, a defendant must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”50

2026“It is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.”’37 The “court must consider the ‘totality of the evidence,’ and ‘must ask if the [movant] has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.”’38 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a question of whether trial counsel’s actions were adequate.39 A review of counsel’s representation is subject 34 Id. at 697 . 35 Id. at 693 . 36 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996). 37 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,

2025“It is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.’”62 The “court must consider the ‘totality of the evidence,’ and ‘must ask if the [movant] has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.’”63 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a question of whether trial counsel’s actions were adequate.64 A review of counsel’s representation is subject to a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was professionally reasonable.65 As 59 Id. at 697 . 60 Id. at 693 . 61 Dawson

2024This appeal followed. (6) We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for postconviction relief for abuse of discretion.4 We review questions of law de novo.5 The procedural requirements of Rule 61 are applied before consideration of the merits of any underlying claims for postconviction relief.6 As the Superior Court recognized, the procedural bars of Rule 61 do not bar a timely claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.7 To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that: (i) his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reas

2024This appeal followed. (6) We review the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for postconviction relief for abuse of discretion.4 We review questions of law de novo.5 The procedural requirements of Rule 61 are applied before consideration of the merits of any underlying claims for postconviction relief.6 As the Superior Court recognized, the procedural bars of Rule 61 do not bar a timely claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.7 To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that: (i) his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reas

2026“It is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.”’37 The “court must consider the ‘totality of the evidence,’ and ‘must ask if the [movant] has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.”’38 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a question of whether trial counsel’s actions were adequate.39 A review of counsel’s representation is subject 34 Id. at 697 . 35 Id. at 693 . 36 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996). 37 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,

2025“It is not enough ‘to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.’”62 The “court must consider the ‘totality of the evidence,’ and ‘must ask if the [movant] has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.’”63 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a question of whether trial counsel’s actions were adequate.64 A review of counsel’s representation is subject to a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was professionally reasonable.65 As 59 Id. at 697 . 60 Id. at 693 . 61 Dawson

2026To satisfy the performance prong, Mr. Earl must show that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness—such “that no reasonable lawyer would have conducted the defense as his lawyer did.”27 There is always a strong presumption that counsel’s representation was reasonable.28 “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance [is] highly deferential.”29 It is now well-accepted, that where “an attorney makes a strategic choice after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options, the presumption that an attorney acted reasonably is 24 Strickland, 466 U.S. a

2025In evaluating such a claim, concrete allegations of prejudice, including specifying the nature of the prejudice and the adverse effects 104 Green v. State, 238 A.3d 160 , 174 (Del. 2020) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88). 105 Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ). 106 Id. (quoting Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 107 (1987)). 107 Id. (citations omitted). 108 Id. (citing Burger, 483 U.S. at 791 ). 24 actually suffered are required;109 the Court dismisses conclusory allegations.110 When a movant collaterally attacks a guilty plea based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, as Guilford