Case Title: Exum v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 77, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EARL EXUM, JR., 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 77, 2002 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN97-02-1735 
§  Cr. ID 9702003987 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 14, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 29, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 29th day of August 2002, 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 defendant-appellant, Earl Exum, was convicted by a 
Supericor Court jury in 1998 of possession with intent to deliver heroin. 
This Court affirmed Exum’s conviction on direct appeal.1 Thereafter, Exum 
filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the Superior Court denied.  
This appeal ensued.  We find it manifest on the face of Exum’s opening brief 
                                                 
1 Exum v. State, 1999 WL 624110 (Del. Supr.). 
 
2
that his appeal is without merit.  Accordingly, the judgment of the Superior 
Court must be affirmed. 
(2) 
In his petition for postconviction relief, Exum asserted that: (i) 
the Superior Court at his trial by failing to give a Lolly2 missing evidence 
instruction; (ii) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during the closing 
argument at trial; and (iii) his trial counsel was ineffective.  In his opening 
brief on appeal, Exum raises only two arguments: (i) the Superior Court 
abused its discretion in denying his motion for an extension of time to 
respond to the State’s answer to his postconviction petition; and (ii) his trial 
counsel was ineffective.  To the extent Exum failed to brief some of the 
issues raised in his postconviction petition below, those claims are now 
waived.3   
(3) 
Having carefully considered the parties= respective positions, 
we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be 
affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated 
January 17, 2002.  The record reflects that the Superior Court carefully 
reviewed each of Exum’s claims concerning his counsel’s allegedly deficient 
performance.  We find no error in the Superior Court’s conclusion that 
                                                 
2 Lolly v. State, 611 A.2d 956 (Del. 1992). 
3 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (Del. 1997). 
 
3
Exum’s claims of ineffective assistance were conclusory and unsupported by 
the record and, thus, legally insufficient to establish that his counsel’s 
performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and was 
prejudicial.4  Moreover, the record reflects that the Superior Court granted 
Exum’s first request for an extension of time to respond to the State’s 
answer.  We find no abuse of the Superior Court’s discretion in refusing to 
grant Exum’s request for an additional extension of time.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   s/Joseph T. Walsh 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
4 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984).