Stone v. State

47 Citing cases

  1. Hudson v. State

    225 A.3d 316 (Del. 2020)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Asbury v. State , 2019 WL 4696781, at *4 (Del. Sept. 25, 2019) ; Watson v. State , 2009 WL 2006883, at *2 (Del. July 13, 2009) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley , 481 U.S. 551 (1987) ).SeeStone v. State , 690 A.2d 924, 925-26 (Del. 1996) (rejecting claim that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to obtain a transcript for use on direct appeal because the appellant "failed to demonstrate how the outcome of the appeal would have been different had the transcript been reviewed by this Court"). (9) To the extent that Hudson argues that the transcript issue presents a basis for reversal independent of his ineffective assistance claim, we similarly find no merit to that claim.

  2. State v. Redding

    ID No. 0203014274 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 2006)

    Rule 61(i)(3) therefore comes into play since any ground not asserted in the proceedings leading up to the judgment of conviction are thereafter barred. Stone v. State, 690 A.2d 924 (Del. 1996) ; Teagle v. State, 755 A.2d 390 (Del. 2000) ; Hill v. State, 758 A.2d 933 (Del. 2000).Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del Super. Ct. 1990).

  3. State v. Flonnory

    I.D. # 0009019952 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 29, 2003)   Cited 4 times

    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694; Wilmer, 2003 Del. Super. LEXIS 80 at *14-*15. Wilmer, 2003 Del. Super. LEXIS 80 at * 15, citing Stone v. State, 690 A.2d 924, 925 (Del. 1996); Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990); see also, Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988). Albury, 551 A.2d at 60, citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693.

  4. State v. Robinson

    Cr.A. Nos. IN-98-11-1297, IN-98-10-0804, 0747 and 0711 ID No. 9809018013 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2002)

    Nor have you shown how anything he did meant you would have either (1) gone to trial instead or (2) obtained a better plea. You apparently insisted you would never plead to the sex charge and you never did. Without a showing of a violation of some standard of professional conduct and without a showing of any prejudice, your claim of ineffective assistance against Mr. Tucker fails. Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186 (Del. 1996); Stone v. State, 690 A.2d 924 (Del. 1996). Mr. Radulski

  5. Abbatiello v. State

    No. 159, 2020 (Del. Dec. 22, 2020)

    ("If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed." (internal quotation omitted)); Stone v. State, 690 A.2d 924, 926 (Del. 1996) ("Moreover, even assuming that Stone's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and present certain witnesses at trial . . ., Stone fails to demonstrate how the presentation of his alleged alibi witnesses . . . would have affected the outcome of his trial.").

  6. Terrero-Ovalles v. State

    No. 91, 2019 (Del. Jun. 3, 2019)

    Miller, 840 A.2d at 1231. Stone v. State, 690 A.2d 924, 925 (Del. 1996). Id.

  7. Collins v. State

    No. 88, 2015 (Del. May. 2, 2016)

    Stone v. State, 690 A.2d 924, 925 (Del. 1996) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694) (applying Strickland test to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim). (25) Finally, Collins argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to discover the discrepancy between State's Exhibit 84 and the discovery copy.

  8. Alomari v. State

    No. 456, 2011 (Del. Dec. 28, 2011)

    Accordingly, the judgment below shall be affirmed. Stone v. State, 690 A.2d 924, 925 (Del. 1996). --------

  9. Dorsey v. State

    937 A.2d 92 (Del. 2007)

    On appeal, this Court must first consider whether the procedural filters of Rule 61 are satisfied before addressing any substantive issues. Stone v. State, 690 A.2d 924, 925 (Del. 1996). Here, as the trial judge noted, Dorsey procedurally complied with the requirements set forth in Rule 61.

  10. Elliott v. State

    792 A.2d 188 (Del. 2002)

    The Superior Court's denial of a defendant's motion for postconviction relief is typically reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.Stone v. State, 690 A.2d 924, 925 (Del. 1996).Weedon v. State, 750 A.2d 521, 527 (Del. 2000).