Phillips claim in Delaware

1982See Marvel v. Barley Mill Road Homes, Del.Ch., 104 A.2d 908 (1954).

1982See Marvel v. Barley Mill Road Homes, Del.Ch., 104 A.2d 908 (1954).

2025In Erlinger, the United States Supreme Court held that a unanimous jury must determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether a defendant's prior offenses were committed on separate occasions for sentencing enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act.6 Here, Phillips’ sentence was not subject to enhancement based on Phillips’ prior criminal conduct—indeed, the record reflects 4 Id. 5 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 6 Erlinger, 602 U.S. at 825 . 3 that Phillips did not have a criminal record when he engaged in the conduct that gave rise to his convictions in this case.7 Erl

2020This appeal followed. (4) The facts relevant to Phillips’ claim arose during jury deliberations at his 2 Phillips v. State (Phillips I), 154 A.3d 1130, 1146 (Del. 2017) (en banc). 3 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2 trial.

2020The State also contends that Phillips has failed to establish either that his trial attorneys’ conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that he suffered prejudice because of counsels’ alleged errors. (10) We review the Superior Court’s denial of a Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief for abuse of discretion.11 We review legal and constitutional questions de novo.12 11 Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 820 (Del. 2013) (en banc). 12 Id. 5 (11) To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must satisfy Strickland’s two-prong standard.13 The defendan

2020The State also contends that Phillips has failed to establish either that his trial attorneys’ conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that he suffered prejudice because of counsels’ alleged errors. (10) We review the Superior Court’s denial of a Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief for abuse of discretion.11 We review legal and constitutional questions de novo.12 11 Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 820 (Del. 2013) (en banc). 12 Id. 5 (11) To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must satisfy Strickland’s two-prong standard.13 The defendan

2020The State also contends that Phillips has failed to establish either that his trial attorneys’ conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that he suffered prejudice because of counsels’ alleged errors. (10) We review the Superior Court’s denial of a Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief for abuse of discretion.11 We review legal and constitutional questions de novo.12 11 Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 820 (Del. 2013) (en banc). 12 Id. 5 (11) To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must satisfy Strickland’s two-prong standard.13 The defendan

2020This appeal followed. (4) The facts relevant to Phillips’ claim arose during jury deliberations at his 2 Phillips v. State (Phillips I), 154 A.3d 1130, 1146 (Del. 2017) (en banc). 3 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2 trial.

2020The State also contends that Phillips has failed to establish either that his trial attorneys’ conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that he suffered prejudice because of counsels’ alleged errors. (10) We review the Superior Court’s denial of a Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief for abuse of discretion.11 We review legal and constitutional questions de novo.12 11 Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 820 (Del. 2013) (en banc). 12 Id. 5 (11) To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must satisfy Strickland’s two-prong standard.13 The defendan

2016This appeal followed. (6) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1 Also, the Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation.”2 (7) In this case, after careful consideration of the record, and in the absence of any claims of error, we conclude that the Superior Court’s denial of 1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S

2016This appeal followed. (6) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1 Also, the Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation.”2 (7) In this case, after careful consideration of the record, and in the absence of any claims of error, we conclude that the Superior Court’s denial of 1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S

2016This appeal followed. (6) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1 Also, the Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation.”2 (7) In this case, after careful consideration of the record, and in the absence of any claims of error, we conclude that the Superior Court’s denial of 1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S

2016This appeal followed. (6) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1 Also, the Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation.”2 (7) In this case, after careful consideration of the record, and in the absence of any claims of error, we conclude that the Superior Court’s denial of 1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S