IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KENNETH COBLE, §
§ No. 461, 2014
Defendant-Below, Appellant, §
§ Court Below: Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware,
§ in and for New Castle County
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ I.D. No. 1004005380
Plaintiff-Below, Appellee. §
Submitted: May 13, 2015
Decided: May 13, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices.
ORDER
This 13th day of May 2015, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the
record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) This is an appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for post-
conviction relief under Rule 61.1 Appellant Kenneth Coble argues that his trial
counsel was ineffective under Strickland2 for failing to insist that the State provide
more proof that Coble had been convicted of the three qualifying felonies required
for him to be classified as an habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a), and to
advise him that he had the right to remain silent at his sentencing hearing.
1
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61.
2
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
1
(2) As the Superior Court properly found, Coble’s claim is procedurally
barred under Rule 61(i)(4)3 to the extent that he seeks to relitigate the question of
whether there was sufficient record evidence that he had been convicted of three
qualifying felonies.4 Coble raised that issue in the Superior Court before
sentencing and on direct appeal to this Court.5 This Court determined that the
claim was without merit.6
(3) Furthermore, the Superior Court’s determination that there is no merit to
Coble’s Strickland claim was well supported by the factual record and was a
proper application of the governing law. As the Commissioner’s Report points
out, Coble is incorrect that there was no reliable evidence of his conviction in
North Carolina for felonious breaking and entering in 1987, aside from his
admission to the Superior Court that the State’s information was accurate.7 The
trial court record contained clear evidence of that previous conviction, including an
arrest warrant, a judgment and commitment form, and a signed plea transcript
displaying Coble’s full name, date of birth, and signature.8 Thus, his attorney was
not ineffective for failing to make the State prove the existence of three predicate
3
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4) (barring the defendant from bringing a claim for relief that was
formerly adjudicated).
4
State v. Coble, 2014 WL 1760950, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 30, 2014).
5
See Coble v. State, 2012 WL 1952293 (Del. May 30, 2012).
6
Id. at *1.
7
See App. to Opening Br. at 163 (Tr. of Sentencing, July 6, 2011).
8
See State v. Coble, 2014 WL 1760950, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 30, 2014); App. to Opening
Br. at 46-52 (Mot. to Declare Kenneth Coble a Habitual Offender, Ex. D); App. to Answering
Br. at 12 (State of North Carolina Tr. of Plea).
2
felonies, as there was sufficient record evidence to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that Coble had been convicted of at least three predicate crimes.
(4) Indeed, had Coble’s trial counsel encouraged Coble to dispute the State’s
proof of Coble’s previous convictions, which Coble himself admitted to on the
record, it would have provided him with no benefit, and could perhaps have been
seen as a lack of acceptance of responsibility. In view of the serious charges that
Coble faced and the strong evidence against him, it would have not have
constituted “ineffective assistance” for his counsel to agree with Coble’s own
inclination to plead guilty to less serious charges and hope for leniency from the
sentencing judge.9 That he was ultimately sentenced to the maximum term, life in
prison, does not provide a basis to second-guess a course of action that was
reasonable given the circumstances Coble confronted.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
9
Coble’s trial counsel clarified in his Rule 61 affidavit that it was “Coble’s decision and his
decision alone to go forward with his sentencing on July 6, 2011 and not contest any of the
convictions listed by the State of Delaware’s habitual offender motion.” App. to Answering Br.
at 7 (Trial Counsel’s Answer to Coble’s Mot. for Postconviction Relief).
3