Kent v. State, 189 A.3d 1255

In 2014 a Wilmington jury convicted Jeffrey Kent of first‑degree murder and PFDCF; he received life plus additional years. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
Kent filed a Rule 61 postconviction motion (amended) alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the Superior Court commissioner recommended denial and the court adopted that recommendation in December 2017.
Appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), concluding there were no arguable issues; Kent filed a pro se response raising several claims and the State moved to affirm.
The underlying facts: eyewitnesses (Boston, Brianna Brown, Dajuan’ya Brown) identified Kent as the bicyclist shooter; defense witnesses (Miller, Archy) disputed lines of sight and timing; Smith gave a statement favorable to defense but was not called.
Postconviction amended motion originally asserted three ineffectiveness claims; two were withdrawn by postconviction counsel after reviewing trial counsel’s notes, leaving only the claim that counsel failed to call Siron Chambers.
The Superior Court found counsel’s strategic decision not to call Chambers reasonable; on appeal the Supreme Court found Kent’s additional claims barred or without plain error and affirmed the denial of postconviction relief.

Issue	Kent's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for 1st‑degree murder	Evidence did not show intent; conviction should be overturned	Kent’s post‑verdict motion was denied at trial; issue is previously adjudicated and barred	Procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(4); not reviewed on appeal
Counsel ineffective for not seeking continuance to corroborate defense witnesses	Continuance would allow corroborating witnesses to be found/called and aid mistaken‑identity defense	Kent failed to identify who these witnesses were or what testimony they would give	Vague/conclusory; no plain error; claim fails
Counsel ineffective for not requesting lesser‑included instructions	Trial counsel should have requested instructions for 2nd‑degree murder or manslaughter	Lesser offenses conflict with Kent’s primary defense of mistaken identity	No plain error; inconsistent with defense strategy
Counsel ineffective for not timely providing sealed info re: PDO conflict (Boston)	Counsel failed to give additional info the judge requested, possibly affecting motion to disqualify PDO	Counsel did provide the information under seal, though after denial; no record that earlier disclosure would have changed outcome	No plain error; no evidence the court would have granted relief if info had been earlier provided

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (standards for court review when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1988) (appellate counsel’s duty in presenting arguable issues)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw for lack of meritorious issues)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096 (Del. 1986) (plain‑error standard for appellate consideration of unpreserved issues)
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (requirements for concrete allegations to sustain postconviction ineffective‑assistance claims)