5 Delaware opinions name it 1 courts 2018–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2024Failure to do so on either prong will doom the claim and the Court need not address the other.24 Further, The Court may enter an order summarily dismissing a PCR motion “if it plainly appears from the [motion] and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief.”25 19 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 20 Id. at 667-68. 21 Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 22 Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. 23 Id. at 694. 24 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there 2024Failure to do so on either prong will doom the claim and the Court need not address the other.24 Further, The Court may enter an order summarily dismissing a PCR motion “if it plainly appears from the [motion] and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief.”25 19 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 20 Id. at 667-68. 21 Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 22 Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. 23 Id. at 694. 24 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there | 1 | 1 |
Albury v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Kinderman filed this PCR motion, alleging IAC, on January 22, 2024.51 In particular, he alleges that: (1) he did not intelligently and voluntarily 46 Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. 47 Id. at 694. 48 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)); Sartin v. State, 2014 WL 5392047 , at *2 (Del. 2024Kinderman filed this PCR motion, alleging IAC, on January 22, 2024.51 In particular, he alleges that: (1) he did not intelligently and voluntarily 46 Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. 47 Id. at 694. 48 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)); Sartin v. State, 2014 WL 5392047 , at *2 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Failure to do so on either prong will doom the claim and the Court need not address the other.24 Further, The Court may enter an order summarily dismissing a PCR motion “if it plainly appears from the [motion] and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief.”25 19 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 20 Id. at 667-68. 21 Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 22 Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. 23 Id. at 694. 24 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there | 1 | 1 |
Ploof v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Failure to do so on either prong will doom the claim and the Court need not address the other.24 Further, The Court may enter an order summarily dismissing a PCR motion “if it plainly appears from the [motion] and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief.”25 19 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 20 Id. at 667-68. 21 Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 22 Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. 23 Id. at 694. 24 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 825 (Del. 2013) (“Strickland is a two-pronged test, and there | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Lockhartgreen2 sentences2024Kinderman filed this PCR motion, alleging IAC, on January 22, 2024.51 In particular, he alleges that: (1) he did not intelligently and voluntarily 46 Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. 47 Id. at 694. 48 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)); Sartin v. State, 2014 WL 5392047 , at *2 (Del. 2024Kinderman filed this PCR motion, alleging IAC, on January 22, 2024.51 In particular, he alleges that: (1) he did not intelligently and voluntarily 46 Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689. 47 Id. at 694. 48 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)); Sartin v. State, 2014 WL 5392047 , at *2 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roy v. State
neutral
1 sentence2025His first, filed on April 29, 2008, raised issues related to transferring his case to the Family Court via a reverse amenability hearing. 7 It was denied on January 22, 2009.8 The denial was affirmed on appeal on July 15, 2009.9 1 D.I. 122 2 D.I. 123. 3 D.I. 2. 4 D.I. 28. 5 D.I. 29. 6 Roy v. State, 2008 WL 802282 (Del. 2008). 7 D.I. 37. 8 D.I. 46. 9 Roy v. State, 2009 WL 2045205 (Del. 2009). 2 Roy’s second PCR motion was filed on May 2, 2013.10 That PCR motion raised five grounds for relief: 1) counsel misled Roy into accepting a plea deal; 2) counsel failed to inform Roy of the lesser include | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Daniels v. State
green
2 sentences2024Daniels filed this PCR motion, his third, also pro se, alleging actual 1 PCR Mot., D.I. 143. 2 Mot. to Withdraw, D.I. 170. 3 Def.’s Resp., D.I. 173 4 State’s Resp., D.I. 175. 5 Daniels v. State, 859 A.2d 1008 (Del. 2004). 6 D.I. 94. 7 D.I. 108. 8 D.I. 115. 9 Daniels v. State, 2011 WL 1900438 (Del. 2011). 10 D.I. 123. 11 D.I. 131. 12 Daniels v. State, 2014 WL 7010919 (Del. 2014). 2 innocence on March 24, 2023,13 along with two motions for appointment of counsel.14 The Court granted those motions on June 23, 2023. 2024Daniels’ pro se PCR motion alleges he is actually innocent based on purportedly newly discovered evidence so as to overcome the procedural bars of Rule 61.21 That newly discovered evidence takes the form of: (1) proposed testimony of Leon Price (“Price”) stemming from a “newly found belief in justice and a desire to do the correct thing” exculpating Daniels and incriminating Jose Martinez (“Martinez”);22 and (2) Daniels’ medical records demonstrating that, due to injuries he sustained in a prior shooting, he was physically unable to perform the movements he was described as performing at trial | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Daniels v. State
neutral
2 sentences2024Daniels filed this PCR motion, his third, also pro se, alleging actual 1 PCR Mot., D.I. 143. 2 Mot. to Withdraw, D.I. 170. 3 Def.’s Resp., D.I. 173 4 State’s Resp., D.I. 175. 5 Daniels v. State, 859 A.2d 1008 (Del. 2004). 6 D.I. 94. 7 D.I. 108. 8 D.I. 115. 9 Daniels v. State, 2011 WL 1900438 (Del. 2011). 10 D.I. 123. 11 D.I. 131. 12 Daniels v. State, 2014 WL 7010919 (Del. 2014). 2 innocence on March 24, 2023,13 along with two motions for appointment of counsel.14 The Court granted those motions on June 23, 2023. 2024Daniels filed this PCR motion, his third, also pro se, alleging actual 1 PCR Mot., D.I. 143. 2 Mot. to Withdraw, D.I. 170. 3 Def.’s Resp., D.I. 173 4 State’s Resp., D.I. 175. 5 Daniels v. State, 859 A.2d 1008 (Del. 2004). 6 D.I. 94. 7 D.I. 108. 8 D.I. 115. 9 Daniels v. State, 2011 WL 1900438 (Del. 2011). 10 D.I. 123. 11 D.I. 131. 12 Daniels v. State, 2014 WL 7010919 (Del. 2014). 2 innocence on March 24, 2023,13 along with two motions for appointment of counsel.14 The Court granted those motions on June 23, 2023. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Miller v. State
green
2 sentences2018In his first PCR motion, Miller claimed that: (1) counsel failed to obtain hospital records of the victim that Would have shown her injuries Were old, despite being asked to obtain them; (2) counsel never responded to voice mail messages; (3) counsel only discussed taking the plea With Miller; and (4) after sentencing, Miller l]\liller v. State, 2016 WL 3410306 (Del. 2018In his first PCR motion, Miller claimed that: (1) counsel failed to obtain hospital records of the victim that Would have shown her injuries Were old, despite being asked to obtain them; (2) counsel never responded to voice mail messages; (3) counsel only discussed taking the plea With Miller; and (4) after sentencing, Miller l]\liller v. State, 2016 WL 3410306 (Del. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.