Case Title: King v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 31, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JERMAINE KING, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 31, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0805039623 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 5, 2011 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: June 2, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 2nd day of June 2011, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Jermaine King, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief.  The State of Delaware 
has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on 
the face of King’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm.  
(2) 
The record reflects that King was arrested following an administrative 
search of his home by probation officers.  As a result, he was later charged with 
 
2
trafficking in cocaine, possession with intent to deliver cocaine, maintaining a 
dwelling, two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, and four counts of 
endangering the welfare of a child.  Through his counsel, King filed several 
unsuccessful pretrial motions, including a motion to suppress and a motion to 
compel the identity of a confidential informant.  On January 27, 2009, King was 
convicted of all charges, except the four endangering counts, following a Superior 
Court bench trial.  The Superior Court sentenced King as a habitual offender to a 
total period of twenty years at Level V incarceration to be followed by a period of 
probation.  This Court affirmed King’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal.1  
In September 2010, King filed his first motion for postconviction relief.  After 
obtaining responses from defense counsel and the State, the Superior Court denied 
King’s motion on its merits.  This appeal followed. 
(3) 
King raises three issues in his opening brief on appeal, asserting that 
his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective because: (i) trial counsel had a 
conflict of interest; (ii) trial counsel failed “to investigate the confidential 
informant’s credibility and reliability;” and (iii) appellate counsel failed to argue 
on appeal that the Superior Court could not provide him with a full and fair 
opportunity to litigate the constitutionality of the search and seizure conducted by 
the probation officers in his case because of conflicts in the case law.  
                                                 
1 King v. State, 984 A.2d 1205 (Del. 2009). 
 
3
(4) 
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant 
has the burden of establishing that: (a) counsel’s conduct fell below an objective 
standard of reasonableness; and (b) but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the 
proceedings would have been different.2  A defendant must make concrete 
allegations of cause and “affirmatively prove prejudice”3 to substantiate a claim of 
ineffective assistance of counsel.4  Counsel’s performance is entitled to a strong 
presumption of reasonableness.5 
(5) 
In this case, we find no error in the Superior Court’s conclusion that 
King had established neither cause nor prejudice with respect to his trial counsel’s 
performance or his appellate counsel’s performance.  King failed to provide clear 
and convincing evidence that his trial counsel’s prosecution of him for a criminal 
offense ten years earlier6 created a disqualifying conflict of interest.7  We agree 
with the Superior Court’s assessment that the record, in fact, reflects that trial 
counsel was extremely zealous in her representation of King.  Accordingly, we 
find no merit to King’s first claim. 
                                                 
2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693 (1985). 
3 Id. 
4 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1980). 
5 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753-54 (Del. 1990). 
6 The record reflects that King pled guilty in February 1998 to one count of possession of a 
deadly weapon by a person prohibited and was immediately sentenced to eleven months.  This 
conviction did not form the basis of the State’s habitual offender motion in the present case. 
7 See Hitchens v. State, 2007 WL 2229020 (Del. July 26, 2007). 
 
4
(6) 
King’s second claim of ineffectiveness, alleging that trial counsel 
failed to investigate the confidential informant’s credibility and reliability, fails 
because counsel did, in fact, file a Flowers8 motion seeking to obtain the 
informant’s identity.  The Superior Court denied that motion.  Accordingly, we 
agree with the Superior Court that King’s assertion that counsel was ineffective for 
failing to obtain the informant’s telephone records borders on frivolous given the 
Superior Court’s ruling that King was not entitled to know the informant’s identity. 
(7) 
King’s final contention is that appellate counsel was ineffective for 
failing to argue that he was prohibited at trial from fairly litigating his Fourth 
Amendment claims because of too many conflicts in the existing case law.  
Appellant counsel, however, zealously argued on appeal that the probation 
officers’ search of his home was unlawful.9  As the Superior Court noted, this 
Court’s opinion on King’s direct appeal are proof of his appellate counsel’s efforts 
on his behalf.  That counsel’s arguments ultimately were unsuccessful does not 
mean that counsel was ineffective.  We find appellate counsel’s performance 
entirely reasonable in this case. 
                                                 
8 State v. Flowers, 316 A.2d 564 (Del. Super. 1973). 
9 See King v. State, 984 A.2d 1205 (Del. 2009). 
 
5
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice