Hitchens v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Weber

    Cr. ID. No. 0408022175 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 22, 2017)   Cited 4 times

    DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEFStrickland 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. Boone

    Cr. ID. No. 1803002540 (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 14, 2020)

    Whittle v. State, 2016 WL 2585904, at *3 (Del. Apr. 28, 2016); State v. Evan-Mayes, 2016 WL 4502303, at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 25, 2016). Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Hitchens v. State, 757 A.2d 1278 (Del. 2000). State v. Hess, 2014 WL 6677714, at * 6 (Del. Super., Nov. 20, 2014) (citations omitted).

  3. State v. Ortiz

    ID No. 1612008820 (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 10, 2018)

    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). Sykes v. State, 147 A.3d 201, 212 (Del. 2015), citing Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 58 (Del. 1988) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694).

  4. State v. Davis

    Cr. ID. No. 1211016788 (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 6, 2017)

    When judging a claim of ineffectiveness, the benchmark is "whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result."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, 293-94 (Del. Super., 1994) (citations omitted).