Title: Hall v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 226, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 13, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GRAYLIN HALL, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 226, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID. 0001001994A  
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  October 7, 2005 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  December 13, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of December 2005, upon consideration of the parties’ brief 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Graylin Hall, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief.  Hall’s sole argument 
is that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.  We find no merit 
to Hall’s appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury convicted Hall in July 
2000 of second degree assault, second degree burglary, and possession of 
burglar’s tools.  The Superior Court found Hall to be an habitual offender and 
sentenced him to life in prison.  This Court affirmed Hall’s convictions and 
 
2
sentence on direct appeal.1  In November 2004, Hall applied for postconviction 
relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  After considering an affidavit 
from Hall’s trial counsel and Hall’s response thereto, the Superior Court denied 
postconviction relief.  This appeal followed. 
 
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Hall claims that he was denied his 
constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial.  Specifically, 
Hall asserts that his counsel was ineffective in the following respects:  (i) 
counsel’s conduct at trial required the prosecutor to make numerous objections 
and led to the trial judge “scolding” defense counsel in front of the jury; (ii) 
counsel improperly mentioned a master key during his opening statement when 
evidence regarding the key was subject to a suppression motion that was not 
resolved; (iii) counsel failed to cross-examine a State witness regarding her 
statement to police; (iv) counsel did not adequately cross-examine another State 
witness and failed to object to the admission of the witness’ prior statement 
under 11 Del. C. § 3507; and (v) defense counsel was too inexperienced, failed 
to investigate the case adequately and failed to present an alibi defense. 
 
(4) 
In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a 
defendant must demonstrate that: (i) defense counsel’s representation fell below 
an objective standard of reasonableness; and (ii) but for counsel’s unprofessional 
                                                 
1 Hall v. State, 788 A.2d 118 (Del. 2001). 
 
3
errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have 
been different.2  There is a strong presumption that defense counsel’s conduct 
was professionally reasonable.3  Moreover, a defendant must make concrete 
allegations of ineffectiveness and substantiate those allegations by showing 
actual prejudice.4 
(5) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record 
below, 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 May 
3, 2005.  Defendant’s conclusory allegations fail to establish either cause or 
prejudice.  The Superior Court did not err in concluding that Hall’s motion for 
postconviction relief was without substantive merit.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 
3 Id. at 689. 
4 Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043 (Del. 2003).