Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Baynum v. Stategreen1 sentence2022This appeal followed. (5) We review the Superior Court’s denial of postconviction relief for abuse of discretion and questions of law de novo.1 The procedural bars of Rule 61 1 Baynum v. State, 211 A.3d 1075, 1082 (Del. 2019). 2 must be considered before any substantive claims are addressed.2 Ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claims, however, are not subject to Rule 61’s procedural bars and are properly raised in a timely filed motion for postconviction relief.3 Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are governed by the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington.4 In order to | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Sept. 16, 2002); Brown v. State, 108 A.3d 1201, 1202 (Del. 2015). 11 See Del. | 1 | 1 |
Evans v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Because Palmer did not raise his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel below, we will not ordinarily consider it on appeal.2 In any 1 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. 2016). 2 Del. | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2019In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Palmer must meet the two-pronged Stricklana’ 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.l3 lOId 'l Palmer v. State, 2017 WL 2924195 , *1 (Del.); State v. Palmer, 2016 WL 2604692 , *2 (Del.Super.). 12 Super.Ct.Crim.R. 6l(g). 13 Strl`ckland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moore v. Vanderloo
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Hanna
green
1 sentence1993Because it is well-settled law in Delaware that incriminating statements obtained during an unreasonable delay are inadmissible, State v. Hanna, 542 A.2d at 798-799 , the trial court erred by denying Palmer’s motion to suppress. 8 V Palmer’s conviction is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED to the Superior Court for a new trial. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.