Case Title: Benson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 512, 2008

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-04-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT M. BENSON, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 512, 2008 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0204003341  
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 13, 2009 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: April 23, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of April 2009, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Robert Benson, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief.  We find 
no merit to Benson’s appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Benson and three codefendants were 
charged in April 2002 with multiple criminal offenses stemming from the 
robbery of a liquor store.  Two codefendants pled guilty before trial.  Benson 
and Jamah Grosvenor were tried together and found guilty of three counts of 
 
2
Robbery in the First Degree, three counts of Possession of a Firearm During 
the Commission of a Felony (Robbery), three counts of Aggravated 
Menacing, three counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission 
of a Felony (Aggravated Menacing), and Conspiracy.  On appeal, this Court 
reversed Benson’s Aggravated Menacing convictions and the associated 
firearm convictions on the ground that those charges merged with the 
Robbery in the First Degree and associated firearm convictions.1  Benson 
was resentenced in April 2005.  Thereafter, in April 2008, Benson requested 
and received an extension of time to file a petition for postconviction relief.  
Benson filed his petition in May 2008, arguing that his trial counsel was 
ineffective for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal on two of the three 
robbery charges and two of the three firearm charges because the evidence 
was insufficient to support his convictions.  He also argued that counsel was 
ineffective for failing to raise this same claim on direct appeal.  The Superior 
Court denied Benson’s motion.  This appeal followed. 
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Benson argues that the State 
never presented evidence at trial of the wallet and the cash that allegedly 
were taken from two of the three robbery victims.  Accordingly, he 
contends, counsel was ineffective for failing to argue at trial and on appeal 
                                                 
1 Benson v. State, 2004 WL 728521 (Del. Mar. 20, 2004). 
 
3
that the evidence was insufficient to support two of his three robbery 
convictions.   
(4) 
This 
Court 
reviews 
the 
Superior 
Court’s 
denial 
of 
postconviction relief for abuse of discretion.2  To prevail on a claim of 
ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish that (i) his trial 
counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; 
and (ii) but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the 
proceedings would have been different.3  The defendant must set forth and 
substantiate concrete allegations of actual prejudice.4 Moreover, there is a 
“strong presumption” that counsel’s representation was professionally 
reasonable.5 
 (5) 
In this case, the Superior Court concluded that Benson’s 
ineffectiveness claims failed because Benson could not establish prejudice 
from counsel’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.  The 
Superior Court held that the victims’ respective testimony at trial, which 
reflected that each victim was compelled to turn over property at gunpoint, 
was more than sufficient to support Benson’s convictions on three counts of 
                                                 
2 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 (Del. 1996). 
3 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). 
4 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990). 
5 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 689. 
 
4
robbery and the associated firearm offenses.  We agree.  Benson’s 
contention that the State was required to produce physical evidence of the 
property that was taken is simply incorrect.  The victims’ testimony was 
more than sufficient evidence from which any rational juror could have 
found Benson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.6  Accordingly, we find no 
error in the Superior Court’s rejection of Benson’s claims of ineffective 
assistance of counsel. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
6 Davis v. State, 453 A.2d 802, 803 (Del. 1982) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 
317 (1979)).