Wisher v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of William Wisher's first motion for postconviction relief. The court rejected claims involving an alleged false statement in a police report, appellate counsel's compliance with Delaware Supreme Court Rule 26(c), burden shifting, hearsay, and a missing-evidence instruction. It held that some claims lacked merit or factual support and that the burden-shifting claim was procedurally barred because it had been previously litigated.

Holdings

1. A typographical discrepancy in a police report did not implicate Franks or require reversal because Franks concerns deliberate falsehoods in probable-cause affidavits used to secure arrest warrants, and the discrepancy was disclosed to and considered by the jury.
2. Delaware Supreme Court Rule 26(c) applies when appellate counsel concludes that there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal; it did not apply where privately retained trial counsel withdrew and a public defender entered an appearance and filed a merits brief.
3. A postconviction claim is procedurally barred when it restates an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim that was previously adjudicated on direct appeal, even if the claim is refined or presented in different language.
4. An ineffective-assistance claim must identify and substantiate concrete attorney error and actual prejudice; a vague allegation that counsel failed to challenge unspecified hearsay is insufficient. A missing-evidence instruction was not required for evidence that was not relevant or exculpatory to the defendant's charges.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an alleged typographical error in a police report concerning ownership of seized money required reversal under Franks v. Delaware.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to follow Delaware Supreme Court Rule 26(c) when withdrawing from representation on appeal.
3. Whether Wisher's burden-shifting claim was procedurally barred because it restated an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim previously rejected on direct appeal.
4. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge unspecified hearsay and the absence of a missing-evidence instruction.

Disposition

affirmed