In Delaware, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are challenged in three areas: 1) trial counsel ineffectiveness  2) appellate counsel ineffectiveness  and, 3) plea counsel ineffectiveness. These areas of ineffectiveness contain common requirements. First, a defendant must prove that counsel’s representation fell below ordinary attorney representation. Second, the defendant must prove their case was harmed in some manner due to counsel’s conduct. The case of Strickland v. Washington, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) provides excellent guidance when challenging any ineffectiveness claim.

The prejudicial component is what differs most between trial, appellate and plea counsel’s ineffectiveness. Generally, establishing trial counsel prejudice requires a defendant to prove that had counsel been effective, the outcome of the trial or sentence would have been different.

For appellate counsel, prejudice can be established by proving an attorney abandoned clearly stronger issues in comparison to issues which were presented in the appellate brief. The case of Smith v. Robbins, 120 S.Ct. 746 (2000) provides excellent guidance when challenging the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel.

For a defendant who entered into a plea agreement, the person usually must establish that had counsel been effective, the plea agreement wouldn’t have been accepted and the defendant would have instead proceeded to trial. The case of Hill v. Lockhart, 106 S.Ct. 366 (1985) provides excellent guidance when challenging the ineffectiveness of counsel surrounding the acceptance of a plea agreement.

Now, let’s identify where you can find the State’s requirements for challenging counsel’s ineffectiveness in each of these three areas.

Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel

For a criminal defendant in Delaware to obtain relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the petitioner must prove that: 1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness  and, 2) but for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. The failure to meet both requirements will be fatal to any ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See: Escalera v. State, 258 A.3d 147 (Del. 2021).

To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the objective standard of reasonableness is based on prevailing professional norms. Once ineffectiveness is established, a petitioner must show that the attorney’s deficient performance prejudiced his case. This means that there must be a reasonable probability that but for the attorney’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability requires more than a showing that the conduct “could have” or “might have” or “it is possible that it would have” led to a different result. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. See: Bussey v. State, 225 A.3d 723 (Del. 2020).

In Delaware, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are properly raised in a timely filed motion for post-conviction relief. Although not insurmountable, there is a strong presumption that counsel’s representation was professionally reasonable. If an attorney makes a strategic choice after thorough investigation of the law and facts relevant to plausible options, that decision is virtually unchallengeable. See: Escalera v. State, 258 A.3d 147 (Del. 2021).

ineffective assistance of counsel Delaware
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

To establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in Delaware, the defendant must show: 1) that counsel’s performance was deficient  and, 2) that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance. See: Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811 (Del. 2013).

When analyzing the performance of appellate counsel, it’s important to recognize that an attorney is not required to argue every possible issue on appeal. An appellate attorney need not, and should not, raise every non-frivolous claim. Rather, counsel should consider all available issues and present the claims which maximize the likelihood of appellate success.

Ineffective Assistance of Plea Counsel

To establish ineffective assistance of plea counsel in Delaware, the defendant must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him or her. The prejudice requirement is satisfied by establishing that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors he, or she, would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. See: Garvin v. State, 129 A.3d 880 (Del. 2015). The Delaware Courts begin with a “strong presumption” counsel’s representation was professionally reasonable. Consequently, a defendant must set forth and substantiate concrete allegations of actual prejudice.

To learn more about presenting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, I encourage you to read my post titled, What is ineffective assistance of counsel?

The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations has a complete section filled with case references to help a defendant support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. There are also subsections providing case citations specific for trial, appellate, and post conviction relief counsel. With over 120 topically organized sections, nearly every defendant will find substantive case references to help identify and detail the acts or omissions wherein counsel may have performed deficiently.

The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations will also help a defendant before and during the criminal trial phase itself. Every criminal defendant should be active in their case’s progression and presentation. By becoming familiar with the many topics covered in this book, a defendant can ensure that counsel is functioning in an effective manner before a jury determination is ever rendered. Buy now