Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of Claude Lacombe’s amended motion for postconviction relief. The Court rejected his ineffective-assistance claims concerning mitigation evidence, enforcement of a plea agreement, and appellate counsel’s proportionality argument, holding that he failed to establish deficient performance or prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Lacombe's claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to cite comparable cases supporting his disproportionality argument was procedurally barred or, instead, could be considered on the merits.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for declining to submit a mitigation report that contained potentially harmful information.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to demand specific performance of the plea agreement based on the State's allegedly improper argument for a harsher sentence.
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in dismissing Lacombe's amended motion for postconviction relief.
Holdings
- The claim was not previously litigated under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(4) because the alleged deficiency—failure to provide a meaningful survey of comparable cases—was distinct from the disproportionality argument raised on direct appeal.
- Lacombe failed to establish prejudice from appellate counsel's failure to cite comparable cases because the life sentence did not create an inference of gross disproportionality, so the second step of the Crosby analysis was not reached.
- Trial counsel's decision not to submit the mitigation report was objectively reasonable strategic conduct, and Lacombe failed to show prejudice.
- Lacombe failed to establish ineffective assistance because the State made the agreed-upon sentencing recommendation, its argument did not cross the line into a breach requiring reversal, and the sentencing court was not bound by the recommendation.
Key quotations
“To put it simply, a deal is a deal: if the State makes a plea deal with a defendant, it should stick to it and not engage in conduct that is designed to undermine it.” (¶ 20)
“To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy two requirements” (¶ 9)
“we note that when the State has reached a plea agreement and the defendant is not seeking a sentence less than the State’s recommendation, the State should be cautious in commenting on aggravating factors” (¶ 19)
Factual background
Lacombe participated with his brother and two others in a planned robbery of two drug dealers. Lacombe waited in a car while his brother entered the victims' vehicle and shot and killed both victims. Under a plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend twenty-two years at Level V incarceration, but the sentencing court imposed life imprisonment for second-degree murder plus ten unsuspended years on the remaining charges. At sentencing, the State recommended the agreed-upon twenty-two-year sentence but also portrayed Lacombe as the mastermind of the offenses and contrasted his culpability with that of his brother.
Procedural history
Lacombe pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, attempted first-degree robbery, and second-degree conspiracy. The Superior Court sentenced him to life imprisonment for second-degree murder plus additional imprisonment, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. The Superior Court summarily dismissed Lacombe's amended postconviction motion, holding that his appellate-counsel claim was procedurally barred and that his trial-counsel claims lacked merit. The Supreme Court considered all three claims on the merits and affirmed.