Case Title: Winn v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 27, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-12-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEPHEN R. WINN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 27, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0103012308 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 7, 2005 
 
 
 
 
Decided: December 8, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 8th day of December 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Stephen R. Winn, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s December 27, 2004 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.1  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
                                                 
1 Winn filed his original postconviction motion in September 2003.  After receiving the 
original motion, the Superior Court requested Winn’s counsel to file an affidavit 
addressing Winn’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which he did.  Winn then 
filed a motion to supplement his original motion, which the Superior Court granted.  
Because the Superior Court’s December 27, 2004 order failed to address Winn’s 
supplemental grounds for relief, the Superior Court issued an additional order dated June 
6, 2005, which addressed those grounds.  Winn’s supplemental claims having been 
 
2
 
(2) 
In February 2002, Winn was found guilty by a Superior Court 
jury of Rape in the First Degree, Kidnapping in the First Degree, the lesser-
included offense of Assault in the Third Degree, Terroristic Threatening, and 
Criminal Contempt of a Protection From Abuse Order.  He was sentenced to 
a total of 47 years incarceration at Level V.  Winn’s convictions and 
sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.2 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Winn claims that: a) his counsel provided 
ineffective assistance by failing to provide zealous representation, conduct a 
meaningful investigation, pursue meaningful discovery, review a particular 
tape recorded statement, call necessary defense witnesses, and permit him to 
participate in jury selection; b) the judge failed to instruct the jury on the 
lesser-included offense of unlawful sexual intercourse in the first degree; c) 
there was insufficient evidence to support his kidnapping and rape 
convictions; d) a tape recording and medical records of the victim should not 
have been admitted into evidence; e) the victim should not have been 
permitted to testify to his prior bad acts; and f) the prosecution was 
improperly permitted to make inflammatory statements to the jury.   
                                                                                                                                                 
addressed by the Superior Court, his “motion for amended claims from unlawful Superior 
Court order” is hereby denied. 
2 Winn v. State, Del. Supr., No. 328, 2002, Berger, J. (Mar. 19, 2003). 
 
3
 
(4) 
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel, a defendant must show that his counsel’s representation fell below 
an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel’s 
unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of 
the proceedings would have been different.3  Although not insurmountable, 
the Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a “strong 
presumption that the representation was professionally reasonable.”4  A 
defendant asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is required to 
make concrete allegations of cause and actual prejudice or risk summary 
dismissal of the claim.5 
 
(5) 
Our review of the record in this case does not reveal any basis 
for Winn’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  There is no evidence that 
any alleged error on the part of Winn’s counsel resulted in any prejudice to 
Winn. 
 
(6) 
Before addressing the merits of Winn’s remaining claims, we 
must determine if any of those claims is subject to the procedural bars of 
Rule 61.  Because Winn failed to raise his remaining claims in his direct 
                                                 
3 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 
4 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990). 
5 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990). 
 
4
appeal, they are procedurally barred in this proceeding.6  Winn’s attempt to 
avoid the procedural bar by alleging ineffective assistance of counsel7 and a 
“colorable claim” of a “miscarriage of justice”8 is unavailing as there is no 
record support for those allegations.      
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (3). 
7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (3) (A) and (B).  
8 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5).