Case Title: Taylor v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 563, 2017

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-07-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARK TAYLOR,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 563, 2017 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
ID. No. 1512004805 (S) 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted:  April 27, 2018 
   Decided:  July 9, 2018 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
The Court has considered the parties’ briefs in this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s opinion denying Mark Taylor’s motion for postconviction relief under 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.1  We affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.  When 
deciding that Taylor’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was without 
substantive merit, it was within the Superior Court’s discretion to credit defense 
counsel’s averments that he “strongly advised” Taylor against taking a plea until 
counsel had an opportunity to review discovery.2  “A criminal defendant has 
‘ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding the case [such 
                                          
 
1 State v. Mark Taylor, 2017 WL 6029302 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2017). 
2 Id. at *3. 
2 
 
as] whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an 
appeal.’”3   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
3 Emmett Taylor v. State, 28 A.3d 399, 406 (Del. 2011) (quoting Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 
751 (1983)).