State v. Coston, 1407012867

On July 15, 2014 Wilmington officers stopped David Coston for a turn‑signal violation, smelled marijuana, and ordered Coston and a passenger out of the vehicle.
Officers observed a loaded .357 revolver under the driver’s seat and a Glock .45 under the passenger seat; at the station Coston told police both guns were his.
Coston was indicted for multiple firearm offenses and possession of marijuana, moved to suppress, lost the suppression hearing, and was convicted at trial; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
Coston filed a timely Rule 61 postconviction motion alleging: (1) his confession was coerced; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not highlighting inconsistencies in officer testimony; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena Downtown Visions video.
Postconviction counsel moved to withdraw under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e)(7), stating the claims lacked merit; the court reviewed the record and Coston filed no response.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Coston's confession was coerced	Confession resulted from police intimidation/rough handling	Record shows no allegation of brutality and Coston reported no recollection; claim not raised earlier	Claim barred by procedural default; merits unsupported
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not highlighting officer testimony inconsistencies	Counsel failed to expose discrepancies about distances between vehicles, undermining credibility	Discrepancies were minor; credibility and conflicts for factfinder; court found officers credible	No Strickland prejudice; claim denied
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena Downtown Visions video	Video likely would have exonerated Coston or impeached officers	Counsel investigated; Operations Director said footage unavailable/ unlikely to show useful evidence; cameras poorly oriented	Investigation reasonable; no prejudice shown; claim denied
Whether postconviction counsel may withdraw under Rule 61(e)(7)	N/A (counsel sought to withdraw)	Counsel attested to conscientious review and lack of meritorious claims; movant given notice	Motion to withdraw granted; Rule 61(e)(7) standards satisfied

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard of deficient performance and prejudice)
Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353 (Del. 1996) (presumption that counsel’s representation is reasonable)
Harris v. State, 968 A.2d 491 (Del. 2009) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder)