Hitchens v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Carroll

    Cr. ID. No. 1502008739 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 15, 2019)

    Defendant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel's conduct was reasonably professional under the circumstances.Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Hitchens v. State, 757 A.2d 1278 (Del. 2000). State v. Wright, 653 A.2d 288, 295 (Del. Super., 1994).

  2. State v. Carroll

    Cr. ID. No. 1502008739 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 6, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Defendant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel's conduct was reasonably professional under the circumstances.Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Hitchens v. State, 757 A.2d 1278 (Del. 2000). State v. Wright, 653 A.2d 288, 295 (Del. Super., 1994).

  3. State v. Morrison

    Criminal ID No. 1607021543 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 16, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Further, mere allegations of ineffectiveness will not suffice, rather, a defendant must make and substantiate concrete allegations of actual prejudice. Great weight and deference are given to tactical decisions by the trial attorney and counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue motions that lack merit.Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Hitchens v. State, 757 A.2d 1278 (Del. 2000). Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694).