Dunnell v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the denial of Dunnell’s first postconviction motion. It held that neither trial counsel nor appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance because counsel’s challenged decisions were objectively reasonable and Dunnell failed to show a reasonable probability of a different result. The court concluded that the cell-phone warrants were supported by probable cause, that the challenged evidence was not shown to require a limiting instruction, and that an appeal of the Lexus-search ruling was not demonstrably more likely to succeed.