Case Title: Schofield v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 415, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LIAM SCHOFIELD, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 415, 2023 
§   
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1608024954 (N) 
§   
§   
§                                                             
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 12, 2024 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
March 20, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, we affirm the Superior Court’s denial of the 
appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief.  Because the appellant waived 
his right to a jury trial and chose to plead guilty, he cannot avail himself of the new-
and-retroactive-rule-of-constitutional-law exception to Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 61’s procedural bars.1  In any event, the United States Supreme Court’s holding 
 
1 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(ii) (providing that a second or subsequent motion for 
postconviction relief must be summarily dismissed unless the movant was convicted after a trial 
and “pleads with particularity a claim that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to 
cases on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, 
applies to the movant’s case and renders the conviction or death sentence invalid”).  To the extent 
that the appellant argues for the first time on appeal that his guilty plea was coerced, his claim is 
belied by record: “[i]n the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, [the appellant] 
is bound by his answers on the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form and by his sworn testimony 
2 
 
in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen2 did not create a new, 
retroactively applicable rule of constitutional law requiring the vacatur of the 
appellant’s convictions for carrying a concealed deadly weapon and possession of a 
weapon in a school zone.3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths 
Justice  
 
 
 
[before the court’s] acceptance of the guilty plea.” Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 
1997). 
2 597 U.S. 1, 71 (2022) (holding that New York’s requirement that an applicant for an unrestricted 
license to carry a handgun in public must prove that a “proper cause” exists to issue it violates the 
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution). 
3 See id. at 13 & n. 1 (distinguishing states that require a permit to carry a handgun in public 
“without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need 
or suitability” and noting that although Delaware’s license-to-carry statute contains discretionary 
criteria, it operates like a “shall-issue” jurisdiction in practice); id. at 80 (Kavanaugh, J., 
concurring) (“Going forward, therefore, the [states] that employ objective shall-issue licensing 
regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so.”); id. at 81 (Kavanaugh, J., 
concurring) (noting that the majority opinion should not be read as casting doubt on laws 
forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings).