Harris v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LYNN HARRIS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 321, 2006 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0305005293 Submitted: August 15, 2006 Decided: September 22, 2006 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices ORDER This 22nd day of September 2006, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and the appellee s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Lynn Harris, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s June 13, 2006 order summarily dismissing his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and AFFIRM. (2) In February 2004, Harris was found guilty, in a Superior Court bench trial, of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, Conspiracy and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. He was sentenced to a total of 13 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 10 years for probation. This Court affirmed Harris convictions and sentences on direct appeal.1 (3) In this appeal, Harris claims that: a) the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; b) the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him; c) the police failed to give him the proper Miranda warnings before conducting a pat down search; and d) his attorney provided ineffective assistance in the direct appeal. (4) Because Harris first three claims were already presented in his direct appeal, he is foreclosed from presenting them again in this proceeding unless he can demonstrate that reconsideration of the claims is warranted in the interest of justice.2 In the absence of any such evidence, Harris first three claims are unavailing. (5) Harris next claims that his counsel provided ineffective assistance, specifically, by failing to file a timely notice of appeal, by filing a motion to withdraw along with his opening brief, and by failing to argue that 1 2 Harris v. State, Del. Supr., No. 193, 2004, Jacobs, J. (Apr. 11, 2005). Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4). 2 the State failed to prove its case, that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him and that the police failed to give him the proper Miranda warnings. (6) In order to prevail on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Harris must demonstrate that his counsel s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for his counsel s unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.3 Although not insurmountable, the Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a strong presumption that the representation was professionally reasonable. 4 (7) As to Harris first claim of ineffective assistance, the record reflects that, after Harris himself filed a notice of appeal in this Court, the Clerk instructed Harris attorney to file a formal notice of appeal by a date certain. Because Harris attorney did as the Clerk instructed, Harris first contention is without merit. As to Harris two remaining claims of ineffective assistance, the record reflects that a no-merit brief was filed on Harris behalf under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), including the points that Harris wished this Court to consider. Ultimately, however, this Court determined that Harris direct appeal was without merit. Harris has, thus, 3 4 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990). 3 failed to demonstrate any error on the part of his counsel that prejudiced his case. (8) It is manifest on the face of Harris opening brief that the appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware s motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief Justice 4
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.
