Title: Reid v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 245, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 15, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID C. REID, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 245, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 0403025083  
§  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 18, 2007 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: October 15, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of October 2007, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, David Reid, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his first petition for postconviction relief.  The State of 
Delaware has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground 
that it is manifest on the face of Reid’s opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that in 2005 a Superior Court jury convicted 
Reid of Rape in the Third Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact in the 
 
2
Second Degree.  The victim was the minor daughter of Reid’s girlfriend.  
This Court affirmed Reid’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal.1  
 
In December 2005, Reid filed his first motion for postconviction 
relief, which enumerated seven overlapping claims, including two claims of 
ineffective assistance of trial counsel.  The Superior Court referred the 
motion to a Superior Court Commissioner. The Commissioner issued a 
report recommending that the motion be denied.  The Superior Court, after a 
de novo review, adopted the Commissioner’s findings and recommendation 
and denied Reid’s motion.  This appeal followed. 
 
(3) 
We review the Superior Court’s denial of postconviction relief 
under Rule 61 for abuse of discretion.2  In his opening brief on appeal, Reid 
makes statements, which he labels as “facts,” but does not enumerate any 
particular argument, nor does he cite any legal authority.  The gist of Reid’s 
complaints appear to surround the State’s use at trial of several audiotaped 
statements in which Reid incriminated himself during police questioning. 
Reid appears to contend that the voice on the tapes is not his, that the State 
tampered with the tapes, that the tapes were not properly authenticated, and 
that his counsel was ineffective for failing to have the tapes properly 
                                                 
1 Reid v. State, 2005 WL 3272134 (Del. Nov. 30, 2005). 
2 Outten v. State, 720 A.2d 547, 551 (Del. 1998). 
 
3
analyzed.  Reid also appears to argue that, without the tapes, the evidence 
against him would have been insufficient to support a guilty verdict.3   
(4) 
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a 
petitioner is required to establish: (a) that defense counsel’s representation 
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (b) that, but for 
counsel’s unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the 
outcome of the case would have been different.4  There is a strong 
presumption that counsel’s conduct was professionally reasonable.5   
(5) 
Reid’s claim fails on both prongs.  The investigating police 
officer testified at Reid’s trial and identified Reid as the speaker on the 
audiotaped statements played for the jury.  That identification was sufficient 
to authenticate the taped statements, contrary to Reid’s assertion.6 
Accordingly, there was no basis for defense counsel to object to the 
admission of the taped statements.  Moreover, Reid can establish no 
prejudice from his counsel’s failure to have the tapes analyzed because his 
                                                 
3 To the extent Reid raised other claims below, he failed to address those issues in his 
opening brief.  Accordingly, those claims are deemed to be waived on appeal. Somerville 
v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (Del. 1997). 
4 Outten v. State, 720 A.2d at 551-52 (citing the standard set forth in Strickland v. 
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)). 
5 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988). 
6 See Del. R. Evid. 901. 
 
4
contention that the State tampered with the tapes is conclusory and wholly 
unsubstantiated.7   
(6) 
Finally, to the extent Reid’s brief can be interpreted to raise a 
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to move 
for a judgment of acquittal, we find no merit to such a claim.  As this Court 
held in Reid’s direct appeal, the evidence at trial was sufficient to support 
the jury’s verdict.8  Accordingly, Reid can establish neither cause nor 
prejudice from counsel’s failure to move for a judgment of acquittal.9 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
   
                                                 
7 See Gattis v. State, 697 A.2d 1174, 1178-79 (Del. 1997). 
8 Reid v. State, 2005 WL 3272134 (Del. Nov. 30, 2005). 
9 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3), which provides that “[a]ny ground for relief that 
was not asserted in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction…is thereafter 
barred” unless the petitioner can establish cause and prejudice.