two part analysis in Delaware

2019Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washington17 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.18 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.19 Second, under Strickland the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.20 I

2018Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washingt0n13 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.14 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.15 Second, under Strz`cklana’ the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings 6 would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.

2019Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washington17 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.18 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.19 Second, under Strickland the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.20 I

2018Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washingt0n13 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.14 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.15 Second, under Strz`cklana’ the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings 6 would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.

2019Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washington17 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.18 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.19 Second, under Strickland the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.20 I

2019Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washington17 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.18 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.19 Second, under Strickland the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.20 I

2019Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washington17 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.18 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.19 Second, under Strickland the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.20 I

2018Super.). 13 Murray v. Carf'ier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986). 15 State v. Brown ID No. 1205025968A February 2, 2018 must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Stricklana' v. Washington” and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albur;v v. State,15 The Stricklana' test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness16 Second, under Stricklana' the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings would have been diff

2018Slale, 795 A.2d 651, 652 (Del. 2002); Johnson v. State, 813 A.2d 161, 167 (Del. 2001); Bl'alach v. Stale, 773 A.2d 383, 387 (D€l. 2001); Oul‘l€n v. State, 720 A.2d 547, 552 (Del. l998); Skl'l’ll’lel” v. Slal€, 607 A.2d ll70, ll72 (D€l. l992); Flamer v. Stale, 585 A.2d 736, 753-754 (D€l. 1990). 8 State v. Thomas L.

2017Sial‘e, 813 A.2d 161, 167 (D€l. 2001); Bl`alaC//l v. Stat€, 773 A.2d 383, 387 (D€l. 2001); Oul‘ten V.

2018Slale, 795 A.2d 651, 652 (Del. 2002); Johnson v. State, 813 A.2d 161, 167 (Del. 2001); Bl'alach v. Stale, 773 A.2d 383, 387 (D€l. 2001); Oul‘l€n v. State, 720 A.2d 547, 552 (Del. l998); Skl'l’ll’lel” v. Slal€, 607 A.2d ll70, ll72 (D€l. l992); Flamer v. Stale, 585 A.2d 736, 753-754 (D€l. 1990). 8 State v. Thomas L.

2017Sial‘e, 813 A.2d 161, 167 (D€l. 2001); Bl`alaC//l v. Stat€, 773 A.2d 383, 387 (D€l. 2001); Oul‘ten V.

2018Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washingt0n13 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.14 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.15 Second, under Strz`cklana’ the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings 6 would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.

2017Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washingt0n19 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.20 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.21 Second, under Str‘ickland the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings 2 would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.2

2018Slale, 795 A.2d 651, 652 (Del. 2002); Johnson v. State, 813 A.2d 161, 167 (Del. 2001); Bl'alach v. Stale, 773 A.2d 383, 387 (D€l. 2001); Oul‘l€n v. State, 720 A.2d 547, 552 (Del. l998); Skl'l’ll’lel” v. Slal€, 607 A.2d ll70, ll72 (D€l. l992); Flamer v. Stale, 585 A.2d 736, 753-754 (D€l. 1990). 8 State v. Thomas L.

2017Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washingt0n19 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.20 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.21 Second, under Str‘ickland the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings 2 would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.2

2019Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washington17 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.18 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.19 Second, under Strickland the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.20 I

2019Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washington17 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.18 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.19 Second, under Strickland the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.20 I

2018Slale, 795 A.2d 651, 652 (Del. 2002); Johnson v. State, 813 A.2d 161, 167 (Del. 2001); Bl'alach v. Stale, 773 A.2d 383, 387 (D€l. 2001); Oul‘l€n v. State, 720 A.2d 547, 552 (Del. l998); Skl'l’ll’lel” v. Slal€, 607 A.2d ll70, ll72 (D€l. l992); Flamer v. Stale, 585 A.2d 736, 753-754 (D€l. 1990). 8 State v. Thomas L.

2017Fleetwood ID No. 1403008516 December 6, 2017 ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must make and substantiate concrete allegations of actual prejudice or risk summary dismissal.17 Generally, a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel fails unless both prongs of the test have been established.18 However, the showing of prejudice is so central to this claim that the Strickland court stated "[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed."19 In other words, if the

2017Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washingt0n19 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.20 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.21 Second, under Str‘ickland the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings 2 would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.2

2017Rather, to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must engage in the two part analysis enunciated in Strickland v. Washington13 and adopted by the Delaware Supreme Court in Albury v. State.14 The Strickland test requires the movant show that counsel's errors were so grievous that his performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness15 Second, under Strickland the movant must show there is a reasonable degree of probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error the outcome of the proceedings would have been different, that is, actual prejudice.16 In

2025A. Claim I – Fraudulent Ballistics Examiner Carl Rone Rone’s transgressions first came to light in 2018 in Fowler v. State 181 while Fowler’s appeal from this Court’s denial of his postconviction relief motion was before the Delaware Supreme Court. 182 They were unknown at the time of 179 Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986) (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 466 U.S. 335 , 344 (1980)). 180 Gattis, 1995 WL 790961 , at *4 (internal citations omitted). 181 194 A.3d 16 (Del. 2018). 182 Id. at 17. 29 Mayfield’s trial and direct appeal. 183 Since this issue was not raised before, Mayfield must sho

2025A. Claim I – Fraudulent Ballistics Examiner Carl Rone Rone’s transgressions first came to light in 2018 in Fowler v. State 181 while Fowler’s appeal from this Court’s denial of his postconviction relief motion was before the Delaware Supreme Court. 182 They were unknown at the time of 179 Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986) (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 466 U.S. 335 , 344 (1980)). 180 Gattis, 1995 WL 790961 , at *4 (internal citations omitted). 181 194 A.3d 16 (Del. 2018). 182 Id. at 17. 29 Mayfield’s trial and direct appeal. 183 Since this issue was not raised before, Mayfield must sho

2022These aspects of Schnell have led the Delaware Supreme Court to instruct that Schnell be invoked sparingly.51 49 See, e.g., Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946, 955 (Del. 1985) (establishing a two part test that asks, first, whether the board acted in good faith to achieve a legitimate corporate objective, and second, whether the board’s actions fell within the range of reasonableness); Blasius 564 A.2d at 658 , 661–63 (establishing a two-part test that asks, first, whether the board acted “for the primary purpose of impeding the exercise of stockholder voting power,” and second,

2019Br. 8. 18 585 A.2d 117 (Del. 1990). 19 Op. Br. 15 ("[L]ooking at the two part test set forth in Sanders , ... it is respectfully suggested that taking that together with the Miller decision[,] ... in the sentencing of a juvenile defendant Trial Judges should have absolute discretion."). 20 Sanders , 585 A.2d at 147 (concluding that the imposition of the death penalty following a guilty but mentally ill verdict is not disproportionate under the Delaware constitution). 21 Wallace v. State , 956 A.2d 630 , 637 (Del. 2008) (quoting Ortiz v. State , 869 A.2d 285 , 291 n.4 (Del. 2005) ); see also Wa

2019Br. 8. 18 585 A.2d 117 (Del. 1990). 19 Op. Br. 15 ("[L]ooking at the two part test set forth in Sanders , ... it is respectfully suggested that taking that together with the Miller decision[,] ... in the sentencing of a juvenile defendant Trial Judges should have absolute discretion."). 20 Sanders , 585 A.2d at 147 (concluding that the imposition of the death penalty following a guilty but mentally ill verdict is not disproportionate under the Delaware constitution). 21 Wallace v. State , 956 A.2d 630 , 637 (Del. 2008) (quoting Ortiz v. State , 869 A.2d 285 , 291 n.4 (Del. 2005) ); see also Wa

2019Br. 8. 18 585 A.2d 117 (Del. 1990). 19 Op. Br. 15 ("[L]ooking at the two part test set forth in Sanders , ... it is respectfully suggested that taking that together with the Miller decision[,] ... in the sentencing of a juvenile defendant Trial Judges should have absolute discretion."). 20 Sanders , 585 A.2d at 147 (concluding that the imposition of the death penalty following a guilty but mentally ill verdict is not disproportionate under the Delaware constitution). 21 Wallace v. State , 956 A.2d 630 , 637 (Del. 2008) (quoting Ortiz v. State , 869 A.2d 285 , 291 n.4 (Del. 2005) ); see also Wa

2019Br. 8. 18 585 A.2d 117 (Del. 1990). 19 Op. Br. 15 ("[L]ooking at the two part test set forth in Sanders , ... it is respectfully suggested that taking that together with the Miller decision[,] ... in the sentencing of a juvenile defendant Trial Judges should have absolute discretion."). 20 Sanders , 585 A.2d at 147 (concluding that the imposition of the death penalty following a guilty but mentally ill verdict is not disproportionate under the Delaware constitution). 21 Wallace v. State , 956 A.2d 630 , 637 (Del. 2008) (quoting Ortiz v. State , 869 A.2d 285 , 291 n.4 (Del. 2005) ); see also Wa

2019Br. 8. 18 585 A.2d 117 (Del. 1990). 19 Op. Br. 15 ("[L]ooking at the two part test set forth in Sanders , ... it is respectfully suggested that taking that together with the Miller decision[,] ... in the sentencing of a juvenile defendant Trial Judges should have absolute discretion."). 20 Sanders , 585 A.2d at 147 (concluding that the imposition of the death penalty following a guilty but mentally ill verdict is not disproportionate under the Delaware constitution). 21 Wallace v. State , 956 A.2d 630 , 637 (Del. 2008) (quoting Ortiz v. State , 869 A.2d 285 , 291 n.4 (Del. 2005) ); see also Wa

2019Br. 8. 18 585 A.2d 117 (Del. 1990). 19 Op. Br. 15 ("[L]ooking at the two part test set forth in Sanders , ... it is respectfully suggested that taking that together with the Miller decision[,] ... in the sentencing of a juvenile defendant Trial Judges should have absolute discretion."). 20 Sanders , 585 A.2d at 147 (concluding that the imposition of the death penalty following a guilty but mentally ill verdict is not disproportionate under the Delaware constitution). 21 Wallace v. State , 956 A.2d 630 , 637 (Del. 2008) (quoting Ortiz v. State , 869 A.2d 285 , 291 n.4 (Del. 2005) ); see also Wa

2017Fleetwood ID No. 1403008516 December 6, 2017 ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must make and substantiate concrete allegations of actual prejudice or risk summary dismissal.17 Generally, a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel fails unless both prongs of the test have been established.18 However, the showing of prejudice is so central to this claim that the Strickland court stated "[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed."19 In other words, if the

2017Fleetwood ID No. 1403008516 December 6, 2017 ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must make and substantiate concrete allegations of actual prejudice or risk summary dismissal.17 Generally, a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel fails unless both prongs of the test have been established.18 However, the showing of prejudice is so central to this claim that the Strickland court stated "[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed."19 In other words, if the

2017C. § 3314(1). 13 Potter, 2013 WL 6035723 , at *3 n.18 (citing Lorah v. Home Helpers, lnc., 21 A.3d 596 (Table), 2011 WL 2112739, at *2 (Del.

2017Fleetwood ID No. 1403008516 December 6, 2017 ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must make and substantiate concrete allegations of actual prejudice or risk summary dismissal.17 Generally, a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel fails unless both prongs of the test have been established.18 However, the showing of prejudice is so central to this claim that the Strickland court stated "[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed."19 In other words, if the