Summary
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the denial of Cleveland Richardson's motion for postconviction relief. The court held that Allen v. State was not retroactively applicable and that Richardson's claim concerning a jury instruction under 11 Del. C. § 274 was procedurally barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(4). The court also held that Richardson failed to demonstrate prejudice from alleged ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a purported plea offer.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Richardson's postconviction challenge to the jury's failure to receive an instruction under 11 Del. C. § 274 was procedurally barred because the issue had already been adjudicated on direct appeal.
- Whether Allen v. State announced a rule that applied retroactively on collateral review.
- Whether Richardson established ineffective assistance of counsel based on the alleged failure to communicate a plea offer and demonstrated resulting prejudice.
Holdings
- Allen v. State did not announce a new rule requiring retroactive application on collateral review and was not retroactive under either recognized exception to the general rule of nonretroactivity.
- Because Allen was not retroactive and Richardson showed neither a new fact nor a lack of authority to convict or punish him, his previously adjudicated § 274 jury-instruction claim was barred by Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(4).
- Richardson was not entitled to postconviction relief because he failed to establish prejudice from counsel's alleged failure to communicate a plea offer.
Key quotations
“A case announces a 'new rule' when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the states or federal government or if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time a defendant's conviction became final.” (3 A.3d at 238)
“To summarize, since Allen v. State does not constitute a 'new rule' and is not 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' Allen does not apply retroactively.” (3 A.3d at 240)
“It is well-established that in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two-part test set out in Strickland v. Washington.” (3 A.3d at 240-241)
Factual background
Richardson and Steven Norwood broke into a Delaware residence, entered the home using keys found in the garage, and stole the homeowner's checkbook. After the homeowner confronted them with a firearm, an exchange of gunfire occurred, injuring both intruders. Police followed blood trails to Richardson, found keys and a flashlight bearing his blood, and located a firearm near Norwood's body.
Procedural history
Richardson was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, second-degree conspiracy, and four counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and was sentenced as a habitual criminal to life imprisonment plus 142 years. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. Richardson then filed a timely first motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the Superior Court denied the motion. After the Delaware Supreme Court decided Allen v. State, the Supreme Court remanded to permit consideration of Richardson's argument that Allen required reversal based on the jury instructions, but the Superior Court again denied relief and the matter returned to the Supreme Court.