Hunt v. State, 672, 2015

Defendant Richard Hunt was arrested and charged after multiple sexual assaults in July–August 2010; he pled guilty to one count of first-degree rape, one count of second-degree rape, and PDWDCF and was sentenced to life plus 35 years on January 13, 2012.
Hunt filed an Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief claiming ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel under Strickland v. Washington.
Hunt contends counsel failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence (abuse, neglect, homelessness, sexual victimization, mental disorders, long history of incarceration and drug involvement, and efforts at reform).
Hunt also alleges sentencing counsel made prejudicial statements at sentencing that did not zealously advocate for a lesser sentence and may have sounded like aggravating argument.
The State and the Superior Court relied on the presentence report, which contained extensive background information (family abuse, deprivation, mental-health diagnoses, juvenile incarcerations), and found the judge had considered these mitigating facts when imposing sentence.
The Superior Court denied relief; the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding Hunt failed to show counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable or that he suffered Strickland prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/present additional mitigation	Hunt: counsel should have investigated and presented detailed mitigation (abuse, incest, homelessness, mental illness, sexual victimization) that would likely have reduced the sentence	State: the presentence report already contained the relevant mitigating information; further investigation was not required and some details could have been harmful	Court: No ineffective assistance — counsel’s performance was within reasonable bounds and the judge had considered the mitigating evidence; no Strickland prejudice shown
Whether counsel’s sentencing remarks constituted deficient advocacy and prejudiced Hunt	Hunt: counsel’s comments sounded like plea for severe punishment and failed to zealously advocate for leniency	State: counsel’s remarks were strategic; some mitigating avenues were prudently omitted; no evidence remarks caused actual prejudice	Court: No — remarks were within reasonable strategy and did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811 (Del. 2013) (standard of review for postconviction relief discretionary rulings)
Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629 (Del. 1997) (strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was professionally reasonable)
Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186 (Del. 1996) (definition of prejudice under Strickland in Delaware)
Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736 (Del. 1990) (counsel has general duty to investigate mitigating evidence but is not required to pursue every possible line of inquiry)