Cooke v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Cooke’s motion for postconviction relief. The court held that counsel’s decision not to pursue a competency evaluation before the 2012 retrial was objectively reasonable in light of Cooke’s repeated assertions of competency, refusal to cooperate with mental-health professionals, ability to communicate about trial strategy, and prior litigation position. The court also held that Cooke’s freestanding claim that the trial court should have raised competency sua sponte was procedurally barred, and that applying the amended postconviction rule did not violate the ex post facto prohibition.