State v. Sharp

Summary

The Delaware Superior Court denied Noah Sharp’s motion for postconviction relief and granted appointed counsel Patrick J. Collins’s motion to withdraw. The court held that Sharp’s non-ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and that his ineffective-assistance claims failed because he did not establish prejudice in light of the strong evidence supporting his convictions.

Holdings

1. Sharp's claims other than ineffective assistance of counsel and the juror claim were procedurally defaulted under Rule 61(i)(3) because they were not raised in the proceedings leading to judgment and Sharp did not show cause and prejudice. The juror claim was barred under Rule 61(i)(4) because it had been previously adjudicated at trial and on direct appeal.
2. Sharp failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because his allegations were conclusory and, in light of the overwhelming evidence, did not show a reasonable probability that the alleged errors affected the outcome of the trial.
3. Appointed counsel was permitted to withdraw after conscientiously reviewing the record and determining that Sharp's postconviction claims lacked merit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Sharp's non-ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(3) or Rule 61(i)(4).
2. Whether Sharp established ineffective assistance of counsel based on alleged failures to investigate DNA evidence, the codefendant's mental health and statements, potential defenses, and mitigating evidence.
3. Whether appointed postconviction counsel should be permitted to withdraw after concluding that Sharp's claims were without merit.

Disposition

other