Cirwithian v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSHUA CIRWITHIAN, §
§ No. 142, 2024
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ Cr. ID Nos. 1812006782 (N)
STATE OF DELAWARE, § 1812014043 (N)
§
Appellee. §

Submitted: October 18, 2024
Decided: December 19, 2024

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After considering the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find it

evident that the Superior Court’s March 20, 2024 order adopting the Superior Court

commissioner’s report and recommendation and denying the appellant’s motion for

postconviction relief1 should be affirmed. Although the appellant’s ineffective-

assistance-of-counsel claims were not procedurally barred under Superior Court

Criminal Rule 61,2 we agree with the Superior Court commissioner’s conclusion that

the appellant could not demonstrate that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment

1
State v. Cirwithian, 2024 WL 1219137 (Del. Super. Mar. 20, 2024).
2
Green v. State, 238 A.3d 160, 175 (Del. 2020) (“Simply put, ineffective-assistance claims are not
subject to Rule 61(i)(3)’s bar because they cannot be asserted in the proceedings leading to the
judgment of conviction under the Superior Court’s rules and this Court’s precedent.”).
right to the effective assistance of counsel under the “well-worn standards”3 of

Strickland v. Washington.4 To the extent that the appellant contends that the

Superior Court erred by not considering his objections to the commissioner’s report

and recommendation, we note that the Superior Court did, in fact, consider (and

reject) the appellant’s untimely filed objections.5

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow
Justice

3
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
4
State v. Cirwithian, 2024 WL 862447, at *6 (Del. Super. Feb. 28, 2024) (“At the end of the day,
many of [the appellant’s] claims are overlapping and/or convoluted[] and fail to demonstrate
prejudice under Strickland’s exacting standards…. [T]o the extent [that the appellant] asserts
counsel provided ineffective representation, this argument is not supported by the record and [the
appellant] has not shown prejudice (i.e., a reasonable probability of a different result), but for
counsel’s performance.”).
5
State v. Cirwithian, 2024 WL 1507470 (Del. Super. Apr. 5, 2024).
2