Hitchens v. State

52 Citing cases

  1. State v. Fair

    Cr. ID No. 1409020082 (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 13, 2016)

    See, Malin v. State, 2009 WL 537060, at *5 (Del. Super. 2009) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not procedurally barred because a Rule 61 motion is the appropriate vehicle for raising these claims). 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 (citations omitted).

  2. State v. Mathis

    Cr. ID No. 0609019779 (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 30, 2016)

    Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(4) bars any claims that were formerly adjudicated, whether in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, in an appeal or in a postconviction proceeding. 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).

  3. 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).

  4. State v. Quesenberry

    Criminal ID No. 1503001415 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 14, 2016)

    State v. Dickinson, 2012 WL 3573943, at *5 (Del. Super., Aug. 17, 2012). 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).

  5. State v. Ames

    Cr. Action No. 85005694DI (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 1, 2016)

    To the extent Defendant is attacking his sentence, Defendant was required to comply with Superior Court Criminal Rule 35. 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).

  6. State v. Bayard

    Cr. ID No. 1501004820 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 2, 2016)

    Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 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).

  7. State v. Outlaw

    Cr. ID No. 1508018505 (Del. Super. Ct. May. 19, 2017)

    Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632-633 (Del. 1997); Superior Court Criminal Rule 11(e). 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).

  8. 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).

  9. State v. Kent

    I.D. No. 1302002915 (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 5, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    "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).

  10. 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).