State v. Holmes, 1210019908

On Oct. 27, 2012 Wilmington police stopped a vehicle based on a confidential informant tip; Eric Holmes was an occupant and police found a loaded .22 revolver on his person; co-defendant had a 9mm. Holmes was federal-probation supervised and had three prior felonies.
Holmes was indicted for Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (PFBPP), Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon (CCDW), and possession of controlled substance; the drug charge was later nolle prossed; jury convicted Holmes of PFBPP and acquitted on CCDW.
The State had offered a plea (16 years Level V including habitual-offender status); Holmes rejected the plea and proceeded to trial; upon conviction the State moved to declare Holmes a habitual offender and the court did so.
Holmes sought postconviction relief (Rule 61) alleging ineffective assistance by trial and appellate counsel across multiple grounds (failure to move to disclose informant, failure to obtain intoxication expert, failure to withdraw, failure to renew motion for judgment of acquittal, plea-communication error, sentencing/PSI issues, etc.).
The Superior Court reviewed procedural bars under Rule 61, found the motion timely and not procedurally defaulted, and evaluated the claims under Strickland v. Washington.
The court denied postconviction relief, concluding trial and appellate counsel's performance was within professional norms and Holmes failed to show prejudice; Rule 61 counsel was permitted to withdraw as there were no meritorious claims.

Issue	Holmes' Argument	State's / Court's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to disclose the CI identity	CI identity would enable challenge to the stop and provide eyewitness support for intoxication defense	Counsel reasonably researched suppression law and found no meritorious basis; motion would be frivolous; no showing CI testimony would change outcome	Claim denied — counsel's decision reasonable; no prejudice shown
Whether counsel was ineffective for not hiring an expert for intoxication defense	An expert could link prescription intoxication to mens rea and sway jury	Strategic decision to rely on lay witness opinion was reasonable; expert could be counterproductive; no showing of probable different outcome	Claim denied — trial strategy reasonable; no prejudice
Whether counsel should have withdrawn due to conflict / irreconcilable differences	Holmes argued persistent dissatisfaction created a conflict impairing advocacy	Court noted no absolute right to counsel of choice; record showed counsel continued zealous, reasoned representation	Claim denied — no ineffective assistance; counsel’s representation adequate
Whether failure to renew motion for judgment of acquittal was ineffective	Renewing might have led to acquittal	Counsel researched and advised motion would fail; court independently considered and would have denied a renewed Rule 29 motion	Claim denied — motion would have been unsuccessful

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (Delaware adoption of Strickland standard)
Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736 (Del. 1990) (postconviction relief is collateral remedy and procedural requirements protect finality)
Bultron v. State, 897 A.2d 758 (Del. 2006) (limits on right to counsel of choice and options when dismissing court-appointed counsel)