Lacombe v. State
542, 2016
| Del. | May 17, 2017Background
- In 2011 Claude Lacombe participated in a planned robbery during which his brother shot and killed two victims; Lacombe pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and related charges.
- Lacombe’s plea agreement required the State to recommend 22 years at Level V; Lacombe was informed the court could impose a higher sentence, including life.
- At sentencing the State recommended 22 years but argued Lacombe was the “mastermind,” while the court sentenced Lacombe to life for second-degree murder plus additional terms, rejecting the "mastermind" theory but finding Lacombe significantly culpable.
- On direct appeal this Court affirmed the sentence, finding no inference of gross disproportionality under the Crosby two-step test.
- Lacombe filed a postconviction Motion claiming (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not submitting a mitigation report, (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to demand specific performance of the plea agreement after the State’s sentencing remarks, and (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for inadequate case comparisons on disproportionality.
- The Superior Court summarily dismissed the Motion; this Court reviewed the claims on the merits and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective appellate counsel for failing to provide adequate case comparisons on disproportionality | Lacombe: appellate counsel should have cited multiple comparable cases to show gross disproportionality under Crosby | State: counsel raised disproportionality on direct appeal; second-step comparison was unnecessary because first-step showed no inference of gross disproportionality | Court: No prejudice under Strickland; appellate counsel’s omission did not change outcome because first-step Crosby analysis failed, so claim denied |
| 2. Trial counsel ineffective for withholding a retained mitigation report at sentencing | Lacombe: withholding the report deprived the court of mitigating evidence and ensured a life sentence | State: counsel reasonably withheld the report to avoid opening the door to harmful allegations (e.g., sexual-abuse claims about the brother); counsel pursued other mitigation | Court: Decision was objectively reasonable trial strategy and Lacombe showed no prejudice; claim denied |
| 3. Trial counsel ineffective for not demanding specific performance of plea agreement after State’s sentencing argument | Lacombe: State’s sentencing remarks tacitly argued for harsher sentence, breaching the plea deal; counsel should have demanded specific performance | State: no breach of the plea agreement; the sentencing court had discretion and defendant was warned it was not bound by the recommendation | Court: No breach occurred that required enforcement; any counsel deficiency caused no prejudice because court was not bound and had discretion; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Crosby v. State, 824 A.2d 894 (Del. 2003) (two-step disproportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment)
- Cole v. State, 922 A.2d 354 (Del. 2007) (plea bargains governed by implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing)
- Dieckman v. Regency GP LP, 155 A.3d 358 (Del. 2017) (definition and application of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing)