State v, Fowler, 1108000561 A & B

Defendant Alan L. Fowler was indicted for two separate July 2011 shooting incidents, charged with attempted first‑degree murder, reckless endangering, PFDCF, PFBPP, and criminal mischief; the State originally agreed to sever the incidents but later moved to reconsolidate.
Trial counsel withdrew and representation changed hands during 2012; Patrick J. Collins ultimately represented Fowler at trial and on appeal.
At trial (May 2013) Fowler was convicted on multiple counts; post‑trial motions reduced some convictions and he was sentenced to an aggregate term (88 years, suspended after 50 years). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal in 2015, relying on the trial court’s denial of severance.
Fowler filed a timely Rule 61 postconviction motion asserting (1) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise an abuse‑of‑prosecutorial‑discretion severance claim on appeal and (2) prejudicial Jencks violations because the State failed to produce several witness interview transcripts before their testimony.
The trial court determined (a) the ineffective‑assistance claim was not procedurally barred but failed Strickland’s performance and prejudice prongs, and (b) the Jencks nondisclosure was inadvertent but harmless under the Hughes harmless‑error test, so relief was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not arguing prosecutorial abuse in rejoining previously severed incidents	Fowler: appellate counsel should have argued the State abused its discretion by reconsolidating charges it had earlier agreed to sever, which prejudiced trial strategy and fairness	State: claim is procedurally defaulted and lacks merit; appellate counsel reasonably omitted the argument because severance was already argued and rejected	Court: Not procedurally barred, but Strickland failed — counsel’s omission was not deficient and no prejudice shown; claim denied
Jencks violation — State failed to produce witness interview transcripts before testimony	Fowler: undisclosed statements (Chatman, Duarte, Godek, Walstrum) would have aided impeachment and affected credibility in a case hinging on identity of the shooter	State: nondisclosure was inadvertent; postconviction disclosure shows no material effect on verdict; any procedural default excused because violation was unknown until postconviction	Court: Violation was inadvertent; applying Hughes factors (centrality, closeness, mitigation) the nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no actual innocence shown; claim denied

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559 (Del. 1981) (Delaware three‑pronged harmless‑error test for discovery/Jencks violations)
Lance v. State, 600 A.2d 337 (Del. 1991) (discusses harmless error and standards for discovery violations)
Valentin v. State, 74 A.3d 645 (Del. 2013) (applies Hughes factors in assessing prejudice from discovery violations)