State of Delaware v. Smith.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RICHARD F. STOKES SUSSEX COU NTY C OUR THO USE JUDGE 1 THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 TELEPHONE (302) 856-5264 May 30, 2014 Harold W. Smith, Jr. SBI# 002 S.C.I. P.O. Box 500 Georgetown, DE 19947 RE: State of Delaware v. Harold W. Smith, Jr., Def. ID# 9907005746 (R-2) DATE SUBMITTED: May 27, 2014 Dear Mr. Smith: Defendant Harold W. Smith, Jr. ( defendant ) has filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to his violation of probation ( VOP ) hearing which took place on September 27, 2013.1 As the Delaware Supreme Court has explained: Because there is no constitutional right to counsel at a VOP hearing, ... [a defendant s] purported ineffective assistance of counsel claim ... must fail. 2 1 The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court s judgment in Smith v. State, 85 A.3d 89, 2014 WL 637057 (Del. Feb. 6, 2014). 2 Schoolfield v. State, 73 A.3d 502, 2013 WL 3807471 (Del. July 18, 2013) (footnote and citation omitted). 1 Thus, defendant s motion for postconviction relief is denied.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /s/ Richard F. Stokes Richard F. Stokes cc: Prothonotary s Office Department of Justice Office of the Public Defender 3 It is more efficient to dispose of this matter on the merits rather than examine the procedural bars which also would require denial of the motion. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
