State v. Boykin, 1505004033

Robert E. Boykin was indicted on drug-related charges and driving while suspended; he pled guilty to Drug Dealing (Count I) and Illegal Possession with an Aggravating Factor (Count II) and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 6.5 years Level 5 plus concurrent terms.
Boykin filed a timely pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief (PCR) raising ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct; counsel from the Office of Conflict Counsel was appointed and later moved to withdraw after concluding the claims lacked merit.
Central factual dispute: police officers recovered a 3.5 gram bag of cocaine at a location where officers claimed Boykin had thrown the bag from his car; dash-cam footage did not clearly show Boykin throwing anything because his car left the camera’s view.
Boykin contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion based on an alleged officer lie that the dash-cam showed him discard drugs; he also alleges the State committed misconduct by presenting that alleged lie to the grand jury.
The court reviewed procedural bars under Superior Court Crim. R. 61 and reached the merits because this was Boykin’s first, timely PCR. The court applied Strickland standards for ineffective assistance claims and examined the plea colloquy and plea agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failure to file suppression motion	Boykin: counsel should have moved to suppress evidence and challenged an officer’s alleged false statement that the dash-cam showed him throwing drugs; would not have pled guilty if so advised	State/Counsel: video did not conclusively show innocence; other corroborating evidence linked Boykin to the location where drugs were found; counsel reasonably advised risk of conviction	Denied — counsel’s advice was reasonable; no basis to suppress officer observations; Strickland performance and prejudice prongs not met
Prosecutorial misconduct for alleged grand jury falsehoods	Boykin: indictment was procured by an officer’s false claim that video showed him discarding drugs, so charges should be dismissed	State: no evidence that any officer lied to the grand jury; grand jury proceedings are unrecorded, and Boykin points to no concrete proof	Denied — claim unsupported by evidence and rests on the same unproven factual assertion as the ineffective assistance claim

Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (explaining procedural bars to postconviction relief)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353 (Del. 1996) (movant must make concrete allegations of prejudice to avoid summary dismissal)
Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (prejudice standard when plea is challenged under ineffective assistance principles)
Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811 (Del. 2013) (Strickland is a two‑pronged test; failure on either prong defeats claim)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (on prejudice inquiry in plea context)