WAYMOND E. WRIGHT, Defendant Below, Appellant,
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
Submitted: July 27, 2018
Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No.
STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
Strine, Jr. Chief Justice.
appellant, Waymond E. Wright, has appealed the Superior
Court's denial of his first, timely-filed motion for
postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule
After careful consideration of the parties' briefs on
appeal and the Superior Court record, we have concluded that
the Superior Court's judgment should be affirmed.
Wright and two co-defendants, Natasha Mahaley and Steven
Huff, were tried jointly on charges that they conspired to
commit two robberies. Midway through the joint trial, after
one set of robbery charges was dropped, Mahaley and Huff
resolved the second set of robbery charges by guilty pleas.
jury convicted Wright of robbery second degree and conspiracy
second degree. After the verdict, Wright's trial counsel
moved for a judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, for
a new trial. The Superior Court denied the motion after
finding sufficient evidence to support Wright's
convictions and that a new trial was not required in
the interest of justice. We affirmed the Superior Court's
decision on direct appeal.
Wright's motion for postconviction relief and his later
amendments to the motion alleged that his trial and appellate
counsel were ineffective. Wright's counsel filed detailed
affidavits responding to the allegations, the State filed
responses to the postconviction motion as amended, and Wright
filed replies at every opportunity. The Superior Court denied
postconviction relief after determining, in an order dated
March 6, 2018, that Wright's ineffective assistance of
counsel claims were without merit.
this appeal from the Superior Court's March 6 order,
Wright contends that the order is lacking because it gives
only a cursory review of his ineffective counsel claims
rather than a full analysis of the legal issues upon which
the claims are based. Wright also finds fault in the order
because it does not address a claim that he raised in the
postconviction proceedings, that the State failed to disclose
the extent Wright challenges the Superior Court's
analysis of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the
appeal is without merit. When analyzing ineffective
assistance of counsel claims, courts apply the two-prong test
established by the United States Supreme Court in
Strickland v. Washington. Under Strickland,
to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant
must show that his attorney's performance was deficient
and that the deficient performance prejudiced the
defense. In this case, the Superior Court
considered Wright's ineffective counsel claims under the
Strickland standard and properly determined that the
claims were without merit because Wright did not establish,
and the record did not reflect, any deficiencies in his
counsel's representation or prejudice from the alleged
resolve any concern about Wright's exculpatory evidence
claim, which was not explicitly addressed in the Superior
Court's order, we have considered the claim on appeal and
concluded that it is procedurally barred and substantively
without merit. The claim is procedurally barred because
Wright did not-and cannot-establish cause for failing to
raise the claim earlier or prejudice from a violation of his
rights. The claim is without merit because Wright
did not demonstrate that the purported exculpatory
evidence-consisting of the contents of a prior plea offer
that was rejected by Huff-was favorable to Wright's
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.