Simmers v. State, 83, 2017

In October 2014 a Superior Court jury convicted James R. Simmers of two counts of Rape in the Fourth Degree and one count of Indecent Exposure in the Second Degree based on testimony that he digitally penetrated and exposed himself to a developmentally challenged young woman in a wooded area.
Simmers filed a post-verdict motion for a new trial, which the Superior Court denied; this denial was affirmed on direct appeal.
In November 2015 Simmers timely filed his first Rule 61 postconviction motion raising claims about evidence sufficiency, witness credibility, State misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
The Superior Court appointed counsel for postconviction review, allowed counsel to withdraw under Rule 61(e)(6) as having found no substantial grounds, obtained affidavits from trial and appellate counsel, and received the State’s response.
The Superior Court denied relief, treating unraised sufficiency/credibility claims as procedurally barred unless shown cause and prejudice, and evaluating ineffective-assistance claims under Strickland, finding counsel’s actions were reasonable strategic decisions and Simmers failed to show prejudice.
The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion, affirmed the Superior Court’s opinion, and held the judgment should be affirmed for the reasons stated below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alleged State misconduct (late disclosure of exculpatory evidence) merits relief	Simmers argued the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence until just before trial, warranting relief	State and courts previously considered and rejected the claim on new-trial review	Barred as previously adjudicated; no need to reconsider (affirmed)
Whether sufficiency/credibility claims not raised on direct appeal can be litigated in Rule 61	Simmers contended the evidence was insufficient and witnesses not credible	These claims were not raised on direct appeal and are procedurally defaulted	Procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(3) absent cause and prejudice (no cause/prejudice shown)
Whether trial/appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise sufficiency/credibility issues	Simmers argued counsel should have raised these issues below or on direct appeal	Counsel made objectively reasonable strategic decisions; no reasonable probability of a different outcome	Strickland not satisfied; ineffective-assistance claims denied
Whether postconviction counsel properly withdrew under Rule 61(e)(6)	Simmers implicitly contested the adequacy of postconviction representation	Counsel withdrew after concluding no substantial grounds and affidavit/supporting record obtained	Withdrawal and Superior Court handling were proper; overall denial affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Reyes, 155 A.3d 331 (Del. 2017) (standard of review for denial of postconviction relief)
Wright v. State, 91 A.3d 972 (Del. 2014) (procedural requirements of Rule 61 must be considered before merits)
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (authority on Rule 61 procedural bar principles)