IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

WAYMOND E. WRIGHT, §

§ No. 146, 2018

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court of 

§ the State of Delaware

v. §

§ Cr. ID No. 1208019720 (N)

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: July 27, 2018

Decided: October 19, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and TRAYNOR, Justices.

O R D E R

(1) The appellant, Waymond E. Wright, has appealed the Superior Court’s 

denial of his first, timely-filed motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court 

Criminal Rule 61.1 After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs on appeal and 

the Superior Court record, we have concluded that the Superior Court’s judgment 

should be affirmed.

(2) Wright and two co-defendants, Natasha Mahaley and Steven Huff, 

were tried jointly on charges that they conspired to commit two robberies. Midway 

 

1

2018 WL 1215884 (Del. Super. Mar. 6, 2018).
2

through the joint trial, after one set of robbery charges was dropped, Mahaley and 

Huff resolved the second set of robbery charges by guilty pleas.

(3) The jury convicted Wright of robbery second degree and conspiracy 

second degree. After the verdict, Wright’s trial counsel moved for a judgment of 

acquittal or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The Superior Court denied the motion

after finding sufficient evidence to support Wright’s convictions2and that a new trial 

was not required in the interest of justice.3 We affirmed the Superior Court’s 

decision on direct appeal.4

(4) Wright’s motion for postconviction relief and his later amendments to 

the motion alleged that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. Wright’s 

counsel filed detailed affidavits responding to the allegations, the State filed 

responses to the postconviction motion as amended, and Wright filed replies at every 

opportunity. The Superior Court denied postconviction relief after determining, in 

an order dated March 6, 2018, that Wright’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims 

were without merit.5

 

2

2014 WL 4088685 (Del. Super. Aug. 19, 2014). As reflected in the court’s decision, the evidence 

presented in the state’s case-in-chief included video surveillance of the area, still shots from the 

surveillance video, and the trial testimony from a non-party eyewitness, from Wright’s former codefendants, and from the chief investigating officer.

3

Id.

4 Wright v. State, 2016 WL 4702061 (Del. Sept. 7, 2016).

5

Supra note 1.
3

(5) In this appeal from the Superior Court’s March 6 order, Wright 

contends that the order is lacking because it gives only a cursory review of his 

ineffective counsel claims rather than a full analysis of the legal issues upon which 

the claims are based. Wright also finds fault in the order because it does not address 

a claim that he raised in the postconviction proceedings, that the State failed to 

disclose exculpatory evidence.

(6) To the extent Wright challenges the Superior Court’s analysis of his 

ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the appeal is without merit. When 

analyzing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, courts apply the two-prong test 

established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington.

6

 Under 

Strickland, to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that 

his attorney’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance 

prejudiced the defense.

7

 In this case, the Superior Court considered Wright’s 

ineffective counsel claims under the Strickland standard and properly determined 

that the claims were without merit because Wright did not establish, and the record 

did not reflect, any deficiencies in his counsel’s representation or prejudice from the 

alleged deficiencies.

 

6

466 U.S. 668 (1984).

7

Id. at 687.
4

(7) To resolve any concern about Wright’s exculpatory evidence claim, 

which was not explicitly addressed in the Superior Court’s order, we have 

considered the claim on appeal and concluded that it is procedurally barred and 

substantively without merit. The claim is procedurally barred because Wright did 

not—and cannot—establish cause for failing to raise the claim earlier or prejudice 

from a violation of his rights.

8

 The claim is without merit because Wright did not 

demonstrate that the purported exculpatory evidence—consisting of the contents of 

a prior plea offer that was rejected by Huff—was favorable to Wright’s defense.

9

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice 

 

 

 

8 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3).

9

Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 333 (Del. 2015).