It is also well settled that the Superior Court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing if, on the face of the motion, the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Hawkins v. State, 839 A.2d 666 (Del. 2003); see also State v. Winn, 2014 WL 5025792, at *4 (Del. Super. Oct. 2, 2014), aff'd, 2015 WL 1469116 (Del. Mar. 30, 2015); State v. Gregg, 2021 WL 2580713, at *7 (Del. Super. June 23, 2021), aff'd, 275 A.3d 257 (Del. 2022). (9) Jones also argues for the first time on appeal that trial counsel's decision not to seek to sever Jones' trial prejudiced him because it allowed the jury to hear a redacted statement given by Jones' co-defendant-Wilson-which Jones now argues violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment.

See State v. Gregg, 2021 WL 2580713, at *7 (Del. Super. Ct. June 23, 2021), arf'd, 2022 WL 881077 (Del. Mar. 24, 2022) ("And to demonstrate actionable prejudice, the movant must show that there was a substantial likelihood that, had the claim been raised, the outcome of the case would have been different.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 748 (Del. 1990) (stating that to succeed on the element of prejudice required under Rule 61(i)(3)'s cause-and-prejudice test, one must show that there was a "substantial likelihood" that, if he earlier pressed the now-defaulted claim, the outcome of his case would have been different).