Case Title: Mays v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 493, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES A. MAYS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 493, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0006015793 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 9, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 24, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 24th day of April 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, James A. Mays, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s August 28, 2006 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In March 2002, a Superior Court jury found Mays guilty of 
Attempted Murder in the First Degree, Robbery in the First Degree, two 
counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and 
Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  On the attempted murder conviction, he 
 
2
was sentenced to 15 years at Level V.  On the robbery conviction, he was 
sentenced to 10 years at Level V, to be suspended after 5 years for 5 years at 
Level IV followed by decreasing levels of supervision.  On the firearm 
convictions, he was sentenced to a total of 10 years at Level V, to be 
suspended after 5 years for 5 years at Level II.  On the conspiracy 
conviction, he was sentenced to 1 year at Level V, to be suspended for 1 
year at Level II.  This Court affirmed Mays’ convictions and sentences on 
direct appeal.1 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Mays claims that his trial counsel provided 
ineffective assistance by failing to a) object to the admission of a 911 call to 
the police and a witness statement given to the police; b) move for the 
suppression of in-court and out-of-court identifications of him; c) move to 
suppress, or redact, his statement to the police; d) move to redact the 
victim’s medical records; and e) properly prepare for trial.  Mays also claims 
that, on direct appeal, his counsel failed to raise the claim that the 
prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to 
kill the victim. 
 
(4) 
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that his counsel’s representation fell 
                                                 
1 Mays v. State, Del. Supr., No. 391, 2002, Veasey, C.J. (Jan. 31, 2003). 
 
3
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.2  Although not insurmountable, 
the Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a “strong 
presumption that the representation was professionally reasonable.”3  The 
defendant must make concrete allegations of ineffective assistance, and 
substantiate them, or risk summary dismissal.4 
 
(5) 
Mays has failed to demonstrate that his counsel committed any 
errors that were prejudicial to him.  The tape recording of the 911 call was 
admissible at trial under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.5  
The witness’ statement to police was admissible at trial as affirmative 
evidence.6  Therefore, any objection by counsel on either of these grounds 
would have been futile.  This Court’s ruling on direct appeal that neither the 
out-of-court photo identification of Mays nor Mays’ statement to police 
prejudiced him forecloses any ineffective assistance claim on either of those 
grounds.   
 
(6) 
Mays has failed to cite to any legal authority supporting his 
claim that his in-court identification was objectionable.  In the absence of 
                                                 
2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 
3 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990). 
4 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990). 
5 Warren v. State, 774 A.2d 246, 251-53 (Del. 2001). 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3507. 
 
4
any evidence that the redaction of certain portions of Mays’ statement, or the 
victim’s medical records, would have altered the outcome of his trial, those 
claims fail as well.  Mays’ claim that his trial counsel was not prepared for 
trial was properly denied by the Superior Court as conclusory.  While Mays 
provides a list of specific ways in which he alleges his counsel was 
unprepared for trial in his instant appeal, he fails to demonstrate how those 
alleged errors resulted in prejudice to him.  As such, this claim is also 
unavailing.   
 
(7) 
Mays’ final claim is that his counsel provided ineffective 
assistance by failing to argue on direct appeal that the State’s evidence was 
insufficient to support his conviction of Attempted Murder in the First 
Degree.  The trial transcript reflects that, when Mays shot his pistol, his arm 
was extended directly towards the victim, who, the ballistic evidence 
showed, was shot in the neck at close range.  Under these circumstances, the 
evidence was more than sufficient to support Mays’ conviction.7  Therefore, 
Mays’ counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by not raising the claim 
on direct appeal. 
                                                 
7 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 531 and 636(a) (1) (containing the elements of attempted first 
degree murder); Barnett v. State, 691 A.2d 614, 618 (Del. 1997) (in reviewing a claim of 
insufficiency of the evidence, the relevant inquiry is whether, viewing the evidence in the 
light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements 
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt).   
 
5
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice