Brooks v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE § § § § § § § § § § § DASHAWN BROOKS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. No. 586, 2006 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0203008352A Submitted: May 11, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 10th day of July 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Dashawn Brooks, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s October 26, 2006 order denying his postconviction motion pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. (2) In March 2003, Brooks was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of Murder in the Second Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree. He was sentenced to a total of 20 years of Level V incarceration. Brooks convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.1 (3) In this appeal, Brooks claims that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to: a) move for a directed verdict on the conspiracy charge on the ground that one of the State s witnesses testified that there was no agreement to murder the victim; b) investigate the jurors possible knowledge of a newspaper article about Brooks; and c) properly investigate Brooks criminal history in connection with his sentencing. (4) In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant 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.2 Although not insurmountable, the Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a strong presumption that the representation was professionally reasonable. 3 The defendant must make concrete allegations of ineffective assistance, and substantiate them, or risk summary dismissal.4 1 Brooks v. State, Del. Supr., No. 310, 2003, Berger, J. (Aug. 16, 2004). Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 3 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990). 4 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990). 2 2 (5) As to Brooks ineffectiveness claims, the record reflects that Brooks co-defendant, Charles White, gave testimony supporting the conspiracy charge. Thus, Brooks counsel acted reasonably in not moving for a directed verdict on that charge. The record also reflects that the trial judge instructed the jury on the newspaper article. Brooks counsel acted reasonably in relying on that instruction to mitigate any potential prejudice to Brooks. Finally, the record reflects that, at sentencing, Brooks counsel misspoke concerning the number of Brooks prior felony offenses. However, he also argued that the mitigating factors in Brooks history warranted nothing more than the minimum mandatory sentence. There is no evidence that the judge sentenced Brooks improperly as a result of his counsel s misstatement. We, thus, conclude that Brooks has not demonstrated that any error on the part of his counsel resulted in prejudice to him. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 3
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.
