Hitchens v. State

52 Citing cases

  1. State v. Yarborough

    Cr. ID. No. 1202006406 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2019)   Cited 5 times

    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). Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694)

  2. 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).

  3. State v. Phillips

    Cr. ID. No. 1210013272 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 11, 2019)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that evidence of Rone's credibility issues did not demonstrate an important change in the factual circumstances sufficient to warrant relitigation under Rule 61

    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. Finn, 2012 WL 1980566, at *4 (Del. Super., May 23, 2012).

  4. State v. Reed

    ID No. 1809015387 (Del. Super. Ct. Jun. 4, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.674 (1984). Hitchens v. State, 757 A.2d 1278 (Del. 2000). The issues raised by Reed concerning withdrawal of his pleas are not new. He raised, then withdrew, them prior to sentencing.

  5. State v. Daniels

    Criminal ID No. 1404018370 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 14, 2016)   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 (1984); Hitchens v. State, 757 A.2d 1278 (Del. 2000); Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (1997) (citations omitted). State v. Wright, 653 A.2d 288, 293-94 (Del. Super. 1994) (citations omitted).

  6. State v. Spady

    Cr. ID No. 1701007644 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 10, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    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)

  7. State v. Jackson

    Cr. ID No. 1602015453A&B (Del. Super. Ct. Jun. 22, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    "Rule 61 is intended to correct errors in the trial process, not to allow defendants unlimited opportunities to relitigate their convictions."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)

  8. 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).

  9. State v. Baynum

    Cr. ID. No. 1310015013A (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 16, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    However, where the record establishes that counsel's decision was not a strategic choice, then counsel is not entitled to the presumption of deference set forth in Strickland.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. Ct. 1994).

  10. State v. Phillips

    Cr. ID. No. 1210013321 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 1, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    . Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 694; Hitchens v. State, 757 A.2d 1278 (Del. 2000). State v. Wright, 653 A.2d at 293-94 (citations omitted).