Summary
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the denial of William Brisco's motion for postconviction relief following his convictions for two counts of first-degree robbery. The court rejected his ineffective-assistance claims based on counsel's failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and the alleged defect in the indictment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial or appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on direct appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support Brisco's first-degree robbery convictions.
- Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on direct appeal that the indictment was defective because it did not specifically define the term 'deadly weapon.'
Holdings
- Counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim because Brisco's notes stating that he had a gun constituted more than sufficient evidence that he engaged in conduct clearly implying that he was armed, supporting the first-degree robbery convictions.
- Counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the indictment because the indictment identified a gun as the deadly weapon and therefore provided sufficient notice of the nature of the charges.
Key quotations
“Although not insurmountable, the Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a "strong presumption that the representation was professionally reasonable."” (¶ 4)
“It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, there was no abuse of discretion.” (¶ 7)
Factual background
During each of two robberies, Brisco passed a note to a teller stating that he had a gun. Although he did not display an object appearing to be a deadly weapon, the conduct implied that he was armed. A jury convicted him of two counts of first-degree robbery, and his indictment identified a gun as the deadly weapon.
Procedural history
A Superior Court jury convicted Brisco of two counts of first-degree robbery in November 2005, and he received an aggregate sentence of fourteen and a half years at Level V followed by decreasing levels of supervision. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. The Superior Court denied his Rule 61 postconviction motion, and the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed that judgment after granting the State's motion to affirm.