Title: Ducote v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 41, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 4, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GLEN W. DUCOTE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 41, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0305001806 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 27, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    May 4, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 4th day of May 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, Glen W. Ducote, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s December 29, 2006 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Ducote’s 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
2
 
(2) 
In January 2004, Ducote was found guilty by a Superior Court 
jury of Attempted Murder in the First Degree, Kidnapping in the First 
Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a 
Felony, and Possession of a Deadly Weapon By a Person Prohibited.  He 
was sentenced to life imprisonment plus an additional five years at Level V.  
This Court affirmed Ducote’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal.1 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Ducote claims that his counsel provided 
ineffective assistance by a) failing to present a defense; b) failing to 
investigate; and c) failing to conduct a proper jury voir dire. 
 
(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.2  Although not insurmountable, 
the Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a “strong 
presumption that the representation was professionally reasonable.”3  The 
                                                 
1 Ducote v. State, Del. Supr., No. 118, 2004, Ridgely, J. (May 18, 2005). 
2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 
3 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990). 
 
3
defendant must make concrete allegations of ineffective assistance, and 
substantiate them, or risk summary dismissal.4 
 
(5) 
Ducote has failed to support his claims of error on the part of 
his counsel with specific facts.  He also has failed to demonstrate that errors 
on the part of his counsel resulted in prejudice to him.  We, therefore, find 
no merit to Ducote’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.    
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Ducote’s opening brief that his 
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, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
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.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
                                      Justice  
 
                                                 
4 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990). 
5 On March 27, 2007, Ducote filed a motion to strike the State’s motion to affirm, as well 
as any other motion that might be filed by the State, on the ground that the record was 
filed by the Prothonotary five days beyond the due date.  In the absence of any legal or 
factual support for Ducote’s motion, it is hereby denied.