State v. Cuffee, 1209013919

Defendant Micah O. Cuffee was convicted by jury (Aug 7, 2013) of Attempted Theft of a Senior, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, and Criminal Mischief (< $1,000); sentenced (Oct 25, 2013) as an habitual offender to 8 years Level V plus 2 years Level V (one year suspended to Level III) and fines.
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Cuffee's conviction and sentence on direct appeal (Oct 14, 2014), rejecting claims about indictment amendment, admission of a photo, prosecutorial statements, Brady/discovery, and right to self-representation.
Cuffee filed a timely Rule 61 postconviction motion (and amendments) raising six grounds: indictment amendment error; multiple prosecutorial misconduct claims; ineffective waiver of self-representation; improper introduction of photos; ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and discovery/Brady violations.
The Commissioner reviewed the trial record, counsel affidavit, and Supreme Court decision; concluded most claims were previously adjudicated or procedurally defaulted and that Cuffee failed to show cause and prejudice to overcome the defaults.
On de novo review the Superior Court adopted the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation and denied Cuffee’s amended Rule 61 motion in full (Nov 13, 2017).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State properly amended the indictment	Amendment was improper and prejudiced Cuffee	Amendment was permissible; claim already raised on appeal	Denied — claim previously adjudicated on direct appeal; barred by Rule 61(i)(4)
Prosecutorial misconduct (various subclaims)	Prosecutor misstated facts, vouched, rebuttal improper, allowed false testimony, tampered with evidence	State says arguments are meritless or were raised on appeal	Denied — most subclaims previously adjudicated; remaining subclaims procedurally barred for failure to show cause and prejudice
Validity of waiver of right to counsel / self-representation	Waiver was ineffective, depriving Cuffee of right to represent himself	Record shows valid waiver and no reversible error; Supreme Court rejected claim on appeal	Denied — claim adjudicated on direct appeal
Ineffective assistance of counsel / Brady and discovery failures	Trial counsel was ineffective; Brady violations (withheld traffic ticket, officer notes, 911 records, evidence about another truck)	Counsel’s affidavit shows strategic choices; no reasonable probability of a different outcome; many discovery claims were raised on appeal	Denied — Cuffee failed Strickland cause/prejudice showing; claims procedurally barred where previously adjudicated or not shown to prejudice outcome

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (Delaware adoption of Strickland standard)
Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148 (Del. 1996) (narrow definition of Rule 61 "interest of justice" exception)
Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736 (Del. 1990) (discussion of fundamental fairness and relief from procedural bars)
Bailey v. State, 588 A.2d 1121 (Del. 1991) (procedural requirements for Rule 61 motions)