holding the claim that counsel were ineffective for failing to timely file a motion to suppress was barred by Rule 61 because the court already found that admitting the statement did not prejudice the defendant
Summary of this case from Cole v. State74, 2006.
December 11, 2006.
Appeal from Superior Cr 9506017661.
Decisions without Published Opinions Affirmed.
holding the claim that counsel were ineffective for failing to timely file a motion to suppress was barred by Rule 61 because the court already found that admitting the statement did not prejudice the defendant
Summary of this case from Cole v. StateFull title:Barrow v. State
Court:Supreme Court of Delaware
Date published: Dec 11, 2006
State v. Barrow, 2005 WL 3436609, at *1. Barrow v. State, 913 A.2d 569 (Del. 2006) (TABLE). Dkt.…
Zebroski v. PierceGholdson v. State, 725 A.2d 442 (Table) (Del. 1999); Bass v. State, 710 A.2d 217 (Table) (Del. 1998); Murphy…