Case Title: Foster v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 87, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-08-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN E. FOSTER,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 87, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0703031898 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 11, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 2, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This second day of August 2010, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, John E. Foster, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s January 19, 2010 order, which adopted the 
Commissioner’s October 1, 2009 report recommending that Foster’s motion 
for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 be 
denied.1  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in September 2007, Foster was found 
guilty by a Superior Court jury of Robbery in the Second Degree and 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §512(b); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62. 
 
2
Burglary in the Second Degree.  He was sentenced as a habitual offender2 to 
eighteen years of Level V incarceration.3  Foster’s convictions were affirmed 
by this Court on direct appeal.4   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Foster claims that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion when it denied his motion for postconviction relief because his 
counsel provided ineffective assistance in several respects both at trial and 
on appeal.  Specifically, Foster contends that his counsel failed to request 
appropriate jury voir dire questions, properly obtain forensic reports, raise an 
improper comment by the prosecutor as an issue on appeal, conduct a live 
line-up during trial, move for judgment of acquittal at trial, move to dismiss 
the indictment, and request a missing evidence jury instruction.  Foster also 
claims that the Superior Court failed to address all of his arguments.   
 
(4) 
 In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that his counsel’s representation fell 
below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for his counsel’s 
unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of 
the proceedings would have been different.5  Although not insurmountable, 
the Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a “strong 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4214(a). 
3 The sentence subsequently was reduced by 1 year because of Foster’s substantial 
assistance in connection with an unrelated criminal prosecution.    
4 Foster v. State, 961 A.2d 526 (Del. 2008). 
5 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 
 
3
presumption that the representation was professionally reasonable.”6  The 
defendant must make concrete allegations of ineffective assistance, and 
substantiate them, or risk summary dismissal.7 
 
(5) 
There is no support in the record before us for Foster’s claim 
that his counsel committed professional errors that prejudiced the outcome 
of either his trial or his appeal.  Foster and the victim knew each other.  
Foster’s convictions were based on the victim’s identification of him to a 
neighbor at the time of the crimes and during a photographic line-up.  
Nothing Foster’s attorney either did or did not do could have altered that 
fact.   
 
(6) 
Nor is there is any support for Foster’s claim of abuse of 
discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying his motion.  The 
Superior Court properly obtained Foster’s counsel’s affidavit, which 
answered in detail all of Foster’s claims, as well as a response from the State 
and, based upon a thorough and appropriate analysis of his counsel’s actions, 
found no basis for Foster’s claim of ineffective assistance.   
 
(7) 
Finally, we reject Foster’s claim that the Superior Court failed 
to address all of his arguments.  Foster’s arguments were presented in a 
disorganized and often incoherent manner and it is apparent that the Superior 
                                                 
6 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990). 
7 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990). 
 
4
Court made sense of them as best it could.  For all of the above reasons, we 
conclude that the Superior Court’s judgment must be affirmed.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice