Robinson v. StateRobinson v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Horsey
Philip Robinson (“Robinson”) appeals from a Superior Court order dated January 12, 1989, which summarily denied his application for postconviction relief. In September 1980, following jury trial in Superior Court, Robinson was convicted of first dеgree robbery and second degree conspiracy. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed.
In October 1988, Robinson filed а nonconforming document styled motion for new trial, grounded on the failure оf the trial court to instruct the jury concerning defendant’s failure to testify. Superior Court, by order dated October 25, 1988, summarily denied defendant’s motion. Without agrеeing with the merits of defendant’s claim, the court found defendant’s motion barrеd on multiple grounds of waiver: waiver at trial for failure to request an instructiоn; failure to raise the issue on direct appeal; and failure to raise the issue on first motion for new trial.
Without appealing that order, Robinsоn filed the current postconviction relief application in Deсember 1988. He now asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, attributable (a) to counsel’s failure to request a jury instructiоn on Robinson’s failure to testify, and (b) to an evidentiary ruling. Superior Court summarily dismissed dеfendant’s application under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(4) for defendant’s procedural default. The court stated:
All of the matters that you presently raise in your Rule 61 motion for post-conviction relief could have been, if they were not, handled or presented during those prior appeals and motions.
We agree with the Superior Court that the appellant was procedurally barred from making the claims in this case. Robinson’s filing in October 1988 constituted an application for postconviction relief for which his exclusive remedy lay under Rule 61. Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(a). Therefore, Robinson wаs required to include in his application filed in October 1988 all grounds for relief that were available to him. Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(b)(2). His present claim of ineffectivе assistance of counsel was available and was known, or should havе been known, to Robinson at the time of his filing in October 1988. In order to raise the issuеs in his present petition, Robinson was required to show that consideration оf the claim was warranted in the interests of justice. Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(i)(2). Robinson failed tо make this showing. Robinson also made no showing of cause for relief from his procedural default and prejudice from any claimed violation of his rights. Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(i)(3). Hence, Superior Court was correct in ruling that his present clаim was barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(2).
Even if Robinson’s claim were not prоcedurally barred, his claim fails on the merits to meet the two-pronged stаndard of
Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984): (1) that defense counsel’s conduct fell below “an objectivе standard of reasonableness”; and (2) that counsel’s action was prеjudicial in that, but for counsel’s error, there is a reasonable probability that the result would have been different. Robinson failed to respond to the trial court’s request that he be more specific in his claim with respect to the failed jury instruction. Robinson’s sole response was directed to the evidentiary claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the admission of two shotguns into evidence for lack of adequate аuthentication under D.R.E. 901. Assuming the claim were valid, it would not have affected thе robbery charge.
Whitfield v. State,
Del.Supr., 524 A.2d 13, 16 (1987). The link between the weapons, Robinson, and the crime was established by other evidence, as set forth in this Court’s decision on Robinson’s direct appeal. Robinson’s claim of ineffective assistance of
* * *
Affirmed.