State v. Walsh
1410004172
| Del. Super. Ct. | Sep 26, 2018Background
- Howard A. Walsh was indicted (Jan 2015) and convicted by a jury of multiple firearms-related counts, carrying a concealed weapon, and criminal impersonation; sentenced to a cumulative 30 years plus probation.
- Walsh proceeded pro se on direct appeal; the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence.
- Walsh filed postconviction relief motions raising ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC), due process claims alleging withheld police dashcam footage, alleged juror intimidation, and prosecutorial misconduct; counsel was appointed then discharged so Walsh prosecuted his PCR pro se.
- The Superior Court treated Walsh’s final amended Rule 61 motion as his integrated postconviction submission and evaluated procedural bars before addressing merits.
- The State investigated Walsh’s allegation about dashcam footage and found no such footage existed; alleged discovery items (e.g., an informant named "Lisa Smith") were unsupported.
- The court considered IAC claims against trial counsel and former PCR counsel on the merits under Strickland and denied relief: procedural bars blocked several claims and the remaining IAC claims failed on performance or prejudice grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alleged withheld dashcam video / Brady/due process | Walsh: police withheld patrol dashcam footage that would support suppression/due process claim | State: No such footage existed; no material was withheld | Barred by Rule 61(i)(3) for failure to raise on appeal; merits fail because no footage existed and no prejudice shown |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / discovery violations | Walsh: State failed to disclose Rule 16 material, withheld informant ("Lisa Smith"), and misstated facts in arguments | State: Allegations unsupported; no credible evidence of informant; prosecutor’s arguments were proper inferences from evidence | Barred by procedural default; on merits, no undisclosed material and arguments were permissible; no prejudice |
| Juror intimidation | Walsh: jurors were intimidated by the State’s chief investigator | State: Record contains no support for intimidation claim | Claim was raised and rejected on direct appeal; thus barred by Rule 61(i)(4); Delaware Supreme Court found no record support and no plain error |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (trial and PCR) | Walsh: Trial counsel failed to pursue suppression (dashcam), object to prosecutor, prevent disclosure of prior conviction, and present a mistake-of-law defense; PCR counsel failed to raise these | State: Counsel investigated, made reasonable strategic choices (declined suppression motion, negotiated stipulation rejected by Walsh, permissible tactical choices); PCR counsel’s choices caused no prejudice | IAC claims considered under Strickland. Court found counsel’s performance reasonable and/or Walsh suffered no prejudice; claims denied. PCR counsel claim fails because underlying claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736 (Del. 1990) (standards for evaluating counsel performance and strategic choices)
- Hoskins v. State, 102 A.3d 724 (Del. 2014) (strategic choices after thorough investigation are virtually unchallengeable)
- Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811 (Del. 2013) (Strickland requires both deficient performance and prejudice)
- Johnson v. State, 711 A.2d 18 (Del. 1998) (prosecutor may present reasonable inferences from the evidence in argument)