context of a plea challenge in Delaware

2024Mere allegations of ineffectiveness are not enough.”29 “In the context of a plea challenge, it is not sufficient for the defendant to simply claim . . . counsel was deficient;”30 rather, the defendant “must make and substantiate concrete allegations to overcome this presumption.” 31 Moreover, even when a colorable claim of ineffective assistance exists,“[t]he defendant must also establish that counsel’s actions were so prejudicial that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficiencies, the defendant would not have taken a plea but would have insisted on going to trial.”32

2020On May 26, 2020, counsel filed her Affidavit responding to Perez’s claims. 2) In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the context of a plea challenge, Perez 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.* The first prong requires Perez 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 t

2024The defendant must also establish that counsel’s actions were so prejudicial that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficiencies, the defendant would not have taken a plea but would have insisted on going to trial.9 The burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel is on the defendant.10 Mere allegations of ineffectiveness will not suffice; 6 Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(f) and 61(g). 7 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). 8 Id. at 687-88, 694 . 9 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (Del

2019In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the context of a plea challenge, Rogers must demonstrate that (1) his defense counsel’s conduct fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” The first prong requires Rogers to show by a *° Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997); Modyica v. State, 2009 WL 2426675 (Del. 2009); Miller v. State, 840 A.2d 1229, 1232 (Del. 2004). *!

2024Mere allegations of ineffectiveness are not enough.”29 “In the context of a plea challenge, it is not sufficient for the defendant to simply claim . . . counsel was deficient;”30 rather, the defendant “must make and substantiate concrete allegations to overcome this presumption.” 31 Moreover, even when a colorable claim of ineffective assistance exists,“[t]he defendant must also establish that counsel’s actions were so prejudicial that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficiencies, the defendant would not have taken a plea but would have insisted on going to trial.”32

2014In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a 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. 9 In the context of a plea challenge, a 6 Younger, 580 A.2d at 555 (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 297-99 (1989)) (emphasis added). 7 Webster v. State, 604 A.2d 1364, 1366 (Del.1992). 8 Id. 9 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). 7 defendant must establish that his counsel’s conduct was d

2024The defendant must also establish that counsel’s actions were so prejudicial that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficiencies, the defendant would not have taken a plea but would have insisted on going to trial.9 The burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel is on the defendant.10 Mere allegations of ineffectiveness will not suffice; 6 Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(f) and 61(g). 7 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). 8 Id. at 687-88, 694 . 9 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (Del

2016The Defendant must also establish that counsel’s actions were so prejudicial that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficiencies, the defendant would not have taken a plea but would have insisted on going to trial.” 19 Mere allegations of ineffectiveness will not suffice; instead, a defendant must make and substantiate concrete allegations of actual prejudice. 20 16 See, Mills v. State, 2016 WL 97494, at *3 (Del.) 17 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). 18 Id. at 687-88, 694 . 19 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Somervi

2019See, Mills v. State, 2016 WL 97494, at *3 (Del.); Day v. State, 2011 WL 3617797 (Del.) (claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion was waived when defendant voluntarily entered his guilty plea, since voluntary guilty plea waives any claims of error occurring prior to the entry of the plea); Hickman v. State, 1994 WL 590495 (Del.). * Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). 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, bu

2017The Defendant must also establish that counsel’s 27 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (De1. 1997); Moajica v. State, 2009 WL 2426675 (Del. 2009); Miller v. State, 840 A.2d 1229, 1232 (De1. 2004). 18 see, Mills v. sm¢e, 2016 WL 97494 , ar *3 (Del.) 29 Str'l`ckland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). 31181 a1687-88, 694. actions were so prejudicial that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficiencies, the defendant would not have taken a plea but would have insisted on going to trial.”31 Mere allegations of ineffectiveness will not suffice; instead, a de

2019In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the context of a plea challenge, Rogers must demonstrate that (1) his defense counsel’s conduct fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” The first prong requires Rogers to show by a *° Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997); Modyica v. State, 2009 WL 2426675 (Del. 2009); Miller v. State, 840 A.2d 1229, 1232 (Del. 2004). *!

2017The Defendant must also establish that counsel’s 27 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (De1. 1997); Moajica v. State, 2009 WL 2426675 (Del. 2009); Miller v. State, 840 A.2d 1229, 1232 (De1. 2004). 18 see, Mills v. sm¢e, 2016 WL 97494 , ar *3 (Del.) 29 Str'l`ckland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). 31181 a1687-88, 694. actions were so prejudicial that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficiencies, the defendant would not have taken a plea but would have insisted on going to trial.”31 Mere allegations of ineffectiveness will not suffice; instead, a de

2024Mere allegations of ineffectiveness are not enough.”29 “In the context of a plea challenge, it is not sufficient for the defendant to simply claim . . . counsel was deficient;”30 rather, the defendant “must make and substantiate concrete allegations to overcome this presumption.” 31 Moreover, even when a colorable claim of ineffective assistance exists,“[t]he defendant must also establish that counsel’s actions were so prejudicial that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficiencies, the defendant would not have taken a plea but would have insisted on going to trial.”32

2014In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a 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. 9 In the context of a plea challenge, a 6 Younger, 580 A.2d at 555 (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 297-99 (1989)) (emphasis added). 7 Webster v. State, 604 A.2d 1364, 1366 (Del.1992). 8 Id. 9 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). 7 defendant must establish that his counsel’s conduct was d

2014In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a 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. 9 In the context of a plea challenge, a 6 Younger, 580 A.2d at 555 (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 297-99 (1989)) (emphasis added). 7 Webster v. State, 604 A.2d 1364, 1366 (Del.1992). 8 Id. 9 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). 7 defendant must establish that his counsel’s conduct was d

2014In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a 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. 9 In the context of a plea challenge, a 6 Younger, 580 A.2d at 555 (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 297-99 (1989)) (emphasis added). 7 Webster v. State, 604 A.2d 1364, 1366 (Del.1992). 8 Id. 9 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). 7 defendant must establish that his counsel’s conduct was d