Opinion
No. 562, 2001
Submitted: March 15, 2002
Decided: April 17, 2002
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. Nos. IN98-02-0214, IN98-02-0215
Affirmed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
DANA WILLIAMS, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 562, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: March 15, 2002 Decided: April 17, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
JOSEPH T. WALSH, Justice:
ORDER
This 17th day of April 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Dana Williams, filed this appeal from the October 25, 2001 order of the Superior Court denying his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2) In his appeal, Williams claims that: a) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance; and b) the Superior Court abused its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction motion.
(3) In January 1999, Williams was convicted by a Superior Court jury of Stalking and Non-Compliance with Conditions of Bond. He was sentenced to a total of 8 years imprisonment at Level V, to be suspended after 7 years for decreasing levels of probation. This Court affirmed Williams' convictions and sentences on direct appeal.
Williams v. State, 756 A.2d 349 (Del. 2000).
(4) In order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Williams must show that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. While not insurmountable, the Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a "strong presumption that the representation was professionally reasonable."
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).
Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990).
(5) Williams' claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail because he has not demonstrated that any alleged errors on the part of his counsel resulted in prejudice to him. Moreover, given that Williams' claim fails on its face to satisfy the Strickland standard, the Superior Court was within its discretion to summarily dismiss it.
SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(d) (4).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.