Mumford v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Mumford’s postconviction motion, holding that he failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel on any of his asserted grounds. Counsel reasonably declined to seek disclosure of the informant, suppress evidence from the residence and safe-deposit boxes, or dismiss the money-laundering indictment, and Mumford failed to show resulting prejudice. The Superior Court also acted within its discretion in finding an implied Miranda waiver without an evidentiary hearing because the interview transcript and existing record were sufficient.