Case Title: Rodriguez v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 508, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-07-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ,                     
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 508, 2003 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. No. IN00-02-0709R1 
                      
 
Submitted: May 21, 2004  
   Decided: July 19, 2004    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 19th day of July 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Israel Rodriguez, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s September 10, 2003 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 August 2000, Rodriguez was found guilty by a Superior Court jury 
of Assault in the First Degree.  He was sentenced to 10 years incarceration at Level 
 
 
-2-
V, to be suspended after 5 years for decreasing levels of probation.  This Court 
affirmed Rodriguez’ conviction and sentence on direct appeal.1 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Rodriguez claims that: a) his counsel provided 
ineffective assistance by failing to i) subpoena a defense witness, ii) discredit a 
prosecution witness, iii) permit him to testify, iv) object to the prosecutor’s 
inflammatory remarks, and v) request various documents in discovery; and b) the 
prosecutor’s misconduct denied him a fair and impartial trial.  
 
(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 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    
 
(5) 
We have reviewed carefully the record in this case, including the 
transcript of trial and the affidavit of Rodriguez’ counsel filed in the Superior 
Court in response to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.4  We find no 
                                                 
1 Rodriguez v. State, Del. Supr., No. 533, 2000, Holland, J. (Mar. 30, 2001). 
2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 
3 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990). 
4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(g) (2). 
 
 
-3-
evidence that any alleged error on the part of Rodriguez’ counsel resulted in any 
discernible prejudice to him.  We, therefore, find Rodriguez’ claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel to be without merit. 
 
(6) 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 provides that any ground for relief 
that was not asserted in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction is 
barred unless the petitioner can establish cause for the procedural default and 
prejudice from the violation of the petitioner’s rights.5  Rodriguez raises his claim 
of prosecutorial misconduct for the first time in this postconviction proceeding, but 
fails to explain why he did not raise the claim in his direct appeal and fails to 
demonstrate any violation of his rights.  As such, this claim is procedurally barred 
and the Superior Court properly so found.6  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (3) (A) and (B). 
6 To the extent Rodriguez seeks to establish cause and prejudice by claiming ineffective 
assistance of counsel, we find any such attempt to be unavailing in the absence of any evidence 
that any alleged error on the part of Rodriguez’ counsel resulted in prejudice to him.