Title: Horne v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 520, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 22, 2006

Horne v. State, 887 A.2d 973 (Del. 2005).
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KHALID HORNE,
§
§
No. 520, 2004
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
in and for New Castle County
§
Cr. I.D. No. 0107022453
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: December 14, 2005
Decided: February 22, 2006
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 22  day of February, 2006, on consideration of the briefs of the parties,
nd
it appears to the Court that:
1) Khalid Horne appeals from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for
postconviction relief.  After initially reviewing Horne’s contentions and the record,
this Court remanded, and directed the Superior Court to obtain trial counsel’s affidavit
in response to Horne’s allegations, and to make supplemental findings and
conclusions.   In its Report on Remand, the Superior Court carefully reviewed trial
1
466 U.S. 668 (1984).
2
Report on Remand, October 11, 2005.
3
2
counsel’s affidavit and the trial transcript and concluded that “defendant has not
established ineffective assistance of counsel under the well-defined criteria set forth
in Strickland v. Washington. ”
2 3
2) In his supplemental brief, Horne argues that the trial court missed the point
by focusing on the weight of the drugs, rather than the accuracy of the scale.  We find
no merit to this contention.  Horne’s trial counsel made a tactical decision not to seek
additional information about the accuracy of the scale since the Medical Examiner
testified that the scale was subject to a margin of error.  During closing, Horne’s
counsel pointed out the “built-in error” in the calibration of the scale and argued that,
because of that error, Horne could not be guilty of trafficking.  
3) We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that trial counsel was not
ineffective – either for failing to independently weigh the drugs or for failing to
independently establish the accuracy of the scale used by the Medical Examiner – and
affirm on the basis of the supplemental record and the decision of the Superior Court
in its Report on Remand.    
3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice