Title: Brown v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 137, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 18, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WINFRED O. BROWN, JR.,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 137, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0305001518 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 31, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided:  July 18, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 18th day of July 2007, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Winfred O. Brown, Jr., filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s February 27, 2007 order denying his 
postconviction motion pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.1  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
                                                 
1 The Superior Court adopted the report and recommendation of the commissioner.  Del. 
Code Ann. tit. 10, § 512(b) (1); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62(a) (5). 
 
2
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We agree and AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In December 2003, Brown pleaded guilty to Trafficking in 
Cocaine, Attempted Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Deliver, and 
Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  He was sentenced to a total of 32 years of 
Level V imprisonment, to be suspended after 5 years for decreasing levels of 
supervision.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Brown claims that his trial attorney provided 
ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress on the ground of 
an unconstitutional search and seizure and failing to challenge the affidavit 
of probable cause supporting the search warrant.  Brown also claims that the 
Superior Court abused its discretion by failing to afford him an evidentiary 
hearing on those issues. 
 
(4) 
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel, a defendant must demonstrate 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.3  Although not insurmountable, 
the Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a “strong 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 
 
3
presumption that the representation was professionally reasonable.”4  The 
defendant must make concrete allegations of ineffective assistance, and 
substantiate them, or risk summary dismissal.5 
 
(5) 
The record does not support Brown’s claims of ineffective 
assistance.  As reflected in Brown’s counsel’s affidavit, the search warrant 
that led to the evidence against Brown was supported by probable cause and 
there was, therefore, no reasonable basis for moving to suppress the 
evidence.  Brown has, thus, failed to demonstrate error on the part of his 
counsel that resulted in prejudice to him.  Brown’s final claim that the 
Superior Court should have afforded him an evidentiary hearing also is 
without merit.  The Superior Court was within its discretion to decide 
Brown’s postconviction motion on the written submissions before it.6 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
                                                 
4 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990). 
5 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990). 
6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h) (1) and (3). 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice