Case Title: Whitfield v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 406, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-09-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MUSTAFA A. WHITFIELD, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 406, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0210009174 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 13, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 21, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of September 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On August 2, 2007, the appellant, Mustafa Whitfield, filed a 
notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s July 12, 2007 order striking his 
motion to compel discovery.1  On August 2, 2007, the Clerk issued a notice 
directing Whitfield to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed 
based upon this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal 
interlocutory appeal. 
                                                 
1 Whitfield previously filed a direct appeal from his conviction of multiple felonies and 
this Court affirmed his convictions.  Whitfield subsequently filed a motion for 
postconviction relief, which the Superior Court denied.  This Court affirmed the Superior 
Court’s decision on appeal.   
 
 
2
 
(2) 
On August 13, 2007, Whitfield filed a response to the notice to 
show cause.  In his response, Whitfield states that he filed the motion to 
compel so that he would have the evidentiary support to file another 
postconviction motion. 
 
(3) 
A motion to compel is an interlocutory, and not a final, order.2  
This Court has no jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order in a criminal 
case.3  This well-settled principle of Delaware constitutional law precludes 
our consideration of Whitfield’s appeal.4   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 29(b), this appeal is DISMISSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
2 In re Shockley, Del. Supr., No. 182, 2005, Steele, C.J. (Aug. 16, 2005) (citing Gottlieb 
v. State, 697 A.2d 400, 401-02 (Del. 1997)). 
3 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1) (b); State v. Cooley, 430 A.2d 789, 791 (Del. 1981). 
4 To the extent Whitfield believes he needs certain discovery materials, he must move for 
such materials within the context of a postconviction motion.