Purnell v. State, 106 A.3d 337

Purnell was convicted of murder in the second degree, attempted robbery, and related offenses; Harris pleaded guilty and agreed to testify for the State.
Purnell challenges his trial counsel’s performance in a Rule 61 postconviction proceeding.
The trial began April 14, 2008; Harris pled guilty during jury selection, later testifying for the State.
Purnell’s counsel did not request a Bland accomplice-credibility instruction; trial court gave a general credibility instruction.
The Superior Court denied the Rule 61 motion; Purnell appeals challenging four claims of ineffective assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel deficient for not requesting Bland instruction?	Purnell’s counsel should have requested Bland instruction.	Counsel’s strategy and the record support no deficiency.	Deficient performance; but no prejudice established.
Did failure to request limiting instruction on Harris plea prejudice?	Limiting instruction was required to prevent improper use of Harris’ plea.	Allen controlling; no necessity for such instruction here.	No ineffective assistance; no prejudicial impact.
Did failure to appeal the new-jury seating ruling constitute deficient performance?	A new-jury instruction would have aided defense.	Strategic choice; unlikely success on appeal.	No deficient performance; no prejudice shown.
Did trial counsel’s failure to object to prosecutor vouching constitute deficient performance?	Prosecutor’s questions amounted to improper vouching.	No improper vouching under current law; objection not required.	Not deficient performance; no reversible error.

Bland v. State, 263 A.2d 286 (Del. 1970) (accomplice testimony instructions; foundational to Bland line)
Brooks v. State, 40 A.3d 346 (Del. 2012) (mandates Bland-type instruction when accomplice testifies; nonretroactive)
Smith v. State, 991 A.2d 1169 (Del. 2010) (general credibility not substitute for Bland instruction; prejudice inquiry later)
Hoskins I, 14 A.3d 554 (Del. 2011) (pre Brooks; reviewed plain-error framework for accomplice instructions)
Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935 (Del. 2013) (defers to Smith/Brooks on appellate strategy and Bland instruction)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1983) (defendant controls some decisions; counsel may decide what to raise on appeal)
Allen v. State, 878 A.2d 447 (Del. 2005) (limited use of co-defendant plea; must caution jury)
Scott v. State, 7 A.3d 471 (Del. 2010) (appellate-strategy decisions reviewed under Strickland)
Soliman v. State, 2007 WL 63359 (Del. Jan. 10, 2007) (accomplice instruction framework pre-Brooks)