Title: Harrigan v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 323, 2000
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 26, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
LAMONT HARRIGAN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 323, 2000 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN95-10-1127 
§                   IN95-10-1128 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 1, 2001 
  Decided:   February 26, 2001 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 26th day of February 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Lamont Harrigan, filed this appeal from 
an order of the Superior Court denying his motion for postconviction relief 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
(2) 
Harrigan was convicted by a Superior Court jury of possession with 
intent to deliver illegal drugs and possession of illegal drugs within 300 feet of a 
 
 
-2- 
park.  He was sentenced to a lengthy prison term.  This Court affirmed 
Harrigan’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal.1  
(3) 
In this appeal, Harrigan claims that: i) at trial the prosecution failed 
to prove he had exclusive control over the drugs; ii) there was insufficient 
evidence to support his conviction; iii) his arrest was not supported by probable 
cause; iv) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the jury’s request to 
review the testimony of the investigating officers and by refusing to provide a 
curative instruction regarding the prosecution’s closing argument; and v) he was 
provided ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal in that his 
counsel failed to a) file a motion to suppress evidence, b) challenge the basis for 
the arrest and the sufficiency of the evidence, c) subject the prosecution’s case to 
meaningful adversarial testing, and d) generate the appropriate record for appeal. 
                                                          
 
1Harrigan v. State, Del. Supr., No. 188, 1996, Walsh, J., 1997 WL 45084 (Jan. 29, 1997) 
(ORDER). 
 
 
-3- 
(4) 
When reviewing a motion under Rule 61, this Court must first 
determine that the motion satisfies the procedural requirements of the rule 
before addressing any substantive issues.2  Because Harrigan already 
unsuccessfully raised his first, third and fourth claims in his direct appeal to this 
Court and because he already unsuccessfully raised his second claim at trial, all 
such claims are procedurally barred as formerly adjudicated.3  Moreover, 
reconsideration of these claims is not warranted in the interest of justice,4 nor is 
there any basis for a claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that there was 
a miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined the 
fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to 
the judgment of conviction.5  
                                                          
 
2Bailey v. State, Del. Supr., 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (1991). 
3Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4). 
4Id. 
5Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
 
 
-4- 
(5) 
Harrigan’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is also  unavailing. 
 In order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Harrigan 
must show that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of 
reasonableness and that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, there is a 
reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been 
different.6  Although not insurmountable, the Strickland standard is highly 
demanding and leads to a “strong presumption that the representation was 
professionally reasonable.”7  Based on our review of the record, there is no basis 
for Harrigan’s claims that the prosecution failed to prove he had exclusive control 
over the drugs, that his conviction was based upon insufficient evidence, that his 
arrest was unsupported by probable cause, or that there were inappropriate 
evidentiary rulings.  Thus, there is no basis for Harrigan’s claim that he was 
prejudiced by his counsel’s allegedly ineffective assistance in failing to move to 
suppress evidence, challenge the basis for the arrest, object to the prosecution’s 
evidence at trial and generate an appropriate record for an appeal. 
                                                          
 
6Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 
7Flamer v. State, Del. Supr., 585 A.2d 736, 753 (1990). 
 
 
-5- 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
   s/Joseph T. Walsh 
     Justice