IAC claim in Delaware

2026(March 4, 2024) at 15:15-16:10. 29 See, prosecutor’s sentencing comments, id. at 18:6-14. 30 D.I. 16. 31 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 32 Id. at 667-68. 33 Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 7 ineffective assistance; a defendant must make and substantiate concrete claims of actual prejudice. 34 “[A] court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” 35 A successful Sixth Amendment claim of IAC requires a showing “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

2026(March 4, 2024) at 15:15-16:10. 29 See, prosecutor’s sentencing comments, id. at 18:6-14. 30 D.I. 16. 31 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 32 Id. at 667-68. 33 Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 7 ineffective assistance; a defendant must make and substantiate concrete claims of actual prejudice. 34 “[A] court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” 35 A successful Sixth Amendment claim of IAC requires a showing “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

2026(March 4, 2024) at 15:15-16:10. 29 See, prosecutor’s sentencing comments, id. at 18:6-14. 30 D.I. 16. 31 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 32 Id. at 667-68. 33 Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 7 ineffective assistance; a defendant must make and substantiate concrete claims of actual prejudice. 34 “[A] court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” 35 A successful Sixth Amendment claim of IAC requires a showing “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

2026(March 4, 2024) at 15:15-16:10. 29 See, prosecutor’s sentencing comments, id. at 18:6-14. 30 D.I. 16. 31 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 32 Id. at 667-68. 33 Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 7 ineffective assistance; a defendant must make and substantiate concrete claims of actual prejudice. 34 “[A] court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” 35 A successful Sixth Amendment claim of IAC requires a showing “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

2025To successfully bring an IAC claim, a claimant must demonstrate: (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) that the deficiencies prejudiced the claimant by depriving him or her of a fair trial with reliable results.37 To prove counsel’s deficiency, a defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.38 Moreover, a defendant must make concrete allegations of actual prejudice and substantiate them or risk summary dismissal. 39 “[A] court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reason

2025To successfully bring an IAC claim, a claimant must demonstrate: (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) that the deficiencies prejudiced the claimant by depriving him or her of a fair trial with reliable results.37 To prove counsel’s deficiency, a defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.38 Moreover, a defendant must make concrete allegations of actual prejudice and substantiate them or risk summary dismissal. 39 “[A] court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reason

2025To successfully bring an IAC claim, a claimant must demonstrate: (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) that the deficiencies prejudiced the claimant by depriving him or her of a fair trial with reliable results.37 To prove counsel’s deficiency, a defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.38 Moreover, a defendant must make concrete allegations of actual prejudice and substantiate them or risk summary dismissal. 39 “[A] court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reason

2025To successfully bring an IAC claim, a claimant must demonstrate: (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) that the deficiencies prejudiced the claimant by depriving him or her of a fair trial with reliable results.37 To prove counsel’s deficiency, a defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.38 Moreover, a defendant must make concrete allegations of actual prejudice and substantiate them or risk summary dismissal. 39 “[A] court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reason

2019(Dillard failed to demonstrate “that his is a substantial IAC claim . . . [n]or has he adequately pled any specific exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel”). 19 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984); Alston v. State, 2015 WL 5297709, at *3 (Del.

2019(Dillard failed to demonstrate “that his is a substantial IAC claim . . . [n]or has he adequately pled any specific exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel”). 19 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984); Alston v. State, 2015 WL 5297709, at *3 (Del.

2024Mem. 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 dismissal.”119 If the defendant is unable to show prejudice, his IAC claim will be denied.120 To establish prejudice in a case

2024Mem. 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 dismissal.”119 If the defendant is unable to show prejudice, his IAC claim will be denied.120 To establish prejudice in a case

2024May 28, 2021); Green v. State, 238 A.3d 160 , 187- 188 (Del. 2020); Whittle v. State, 2016 WL 2585904, at *3 (Del.

2024May 28, 2021); Green v. State, 238 A.3d 160 , 187- 188 (Del. 2020); Whittle v. State, 2016 WL 2585904, at *3 (Del.

2024To prevail on an IAC claim, a defendant must “substantiate his concrete allegations of actual prejudice or else risk summary dismissal.” Outten, 720 A.2d at 557 (quoting Boughner v. State, 1995 WL 466465 , at *1 (Del.

2024Mem. 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 dismissal.”119 If the defendant is unable to show prejudice, his IAC claim will be denied.120 To establish prejudice in a case

2024Rule 61: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel To succeed under an IAC claim, a defendant must meet the two-part test laid out in Strickland v. Washington.61 That is, the defendant must demonstrate that: (1) trial counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable,62 and (2) if counsel was deficient, there was a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”63 The Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within a wide range of reasonably professional assista

2024Rule 61: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel To succeed under an IAC claim, a defendant must meet the two-part test laid out in Strickland v. Washington.61 That is, the defendant must demonstrate that: (1) trial counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable,62 and (2) if counsel was deficient, there was a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”63 The Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within a wide range of reasonably professional assista

2026To successfully bring an IAC claim, a claimant must demonstrate: (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) that the deficiencies prejudiced the claimant by depriving him of a fair trial with reliable results.43 To prove counsel’s deficiency, a defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.44 Moreover, a defendant must make concrete allegations of actual prejudice and substantiate them or risk summary dismissal. 45 Conclusory and unsupported claims of prejudice are insufficient to establish ineffective assistance; a defendant mu

2026To successfully bring an IAC claim, a claimant must demonstrate: (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) that the deficiencies prejudiced the claimant by depriving him of a fair trial with reliable results.43 To prove counsel’s deficiency, a defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.44 Moreover, a defendant must make concrete allegations of actual prejudice and substantiate them or risk summary dismissal. 45 Conclusory and unsupported claims of prejudice are insufficient to establish ineffective assistance; a defendant mu

2024Rule 61: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel A successful IAC claim must satisfy the two-pronged test set out in Strickland v. Washington.60 Under Strickland, a defendant must demonstrate that (1) trial counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable, and (2) if trial counsel was deficient, there was a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”61 The Strickland standard carries a strong presumption that counsel conducted himself in a professionally reasonable manner.62 Mere allegations of ineffectiveness are

2022Aug. 4, 2021) (affirming dismissal of postconviction relief where defendant’s claims of new evidence, e.g., that the prosecution’s ballistics expert pleaded guilty to providing false activity sheets to the police and was paid for work not performed, did not give rise to any inference of actual innocence warranting new trial). 57 Hoskins v. State, 102 A.3d 724, 730 (Del. 2014) (“If an attorney makes a strategic choice ‘after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options,’ that decision is ‘virtually unchallengeable.’”): Burns v. State, 76 A.3d 780, 788 (Del. 2013) (“It s

2022Aug. 4, 2021) (affirming dismissal of postconviction relief where defendant’s claims of new evidence, e.g., that the prosecution’s ballistics expert pleaded guilty to providing false activity sheets to the police and was paid for work not performed, did not give rise to any inference of actual innocence warranting new trial). 57 Hoskins v. State, 102 A.3d 724, 730 (Del. 2014) (“If an attorney makes a strategic choice ‘after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options,’ that decision is ‘virtually unchallengeable.’”): Burns v. State, 76 A.3d 780, 788 (Del. 2013) (“It s

2016R. 61(e)(2) (emphasis added). 26 Id. 27 See, e.g., Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 , __, 132 S. Ct. 1309, 1318 (2012) (articulating the standard for overcoming a procedural default and obtaining federal review of an IAC claim: “a prisoner must also demonstrate that the underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim is a substantial one, which is to say that the prisoner must demonstrate that the claim has some merit”). -8- he would not have pleaded guilty and instead proceeded to trial.

2016R. 61(e)(2) (emphasis added). 26 Id. 27 See, e.g., Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 , __, 132 S. Ct. 1309, 1318 (2012) (articulating the standard for overcoming a procedural default and obtaining federal review of an IAC claim: “a prisoner must also demonstrate that the underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim is a substantial one, which is to say that the prisoner must demonstrate that the claim has some merit”). -8- he would not have pleaded guilty and instead proceeded to trial.

2016Trust SP Servs., Inc., 112 A.3d 271, 293-94 (Del.