Case Title: Whitfield v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 371, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-05-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICKY A. WHITFIELD, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 371, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 86001906DI 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 2, 2014 
Decided: 
May 15, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of May 2014, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Ricky A. Whitfield, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his third motion for postconviction relief.  We find no merit to 
the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury convicted Whitfield on 
October 29, 1986 of attempted murder in the first degree, kidnapping in the first 
degree, two counts of possession of a deadly weapon during commission of a 
 
2
felony, and reckless endangerment in the first degree.  On September 8, 1988, this 
Court affirmed Whitfield’s convictions on direct appeal.1   
(3) 
On August 24, 1990, Whitfield filed his first motion for 
postconviction relief, along with a motion for appointment of counsel, claiming 
ineffective assistance of counsel and failure of the prosecution to disclose 
exculpatory evidence.  The Superior Court denied the motions on November 1, 
1990 and this Court affirmed that decision on April 23, 1991.2  The United States 
District Court for the District of Delaware subsequently dismissed without 
prejudice Whitfield’s petition for federal habeas corpus relief.3   
(4) 
On March 10, 1994, Whitfield sent a detailed letter to the Superior 
Court explaining a prior request for appointment of counsel to prepare a second 
motion for postconviction relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel and 
the victim’s desire that the case not be prosecuted.  The Superior Court treated the 
letter as a second motion for postconviction relief and denied it.  This Court 
affirmed the Superior Court’s decision on November 7, 1994.4    
                                                 
1 Whitfield v. State, 1988 WL 101223 (Del. Sept. 8, 1988). 
2 State v. Whitfield, 1990 WL 177589 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 1, 1990), aff’d, 1991 WL 78485 
(Del. Apr. 23, 1991). 
3 Whitfield v. Snyder, C.A. No. 92-280-JJF (D. Del. June 24, 1993). 
4 Whitfield v. State, 1994 WL 632536 (Del. Nov. 7, 1994). 
 
3
(5) 
On March 20, 2013, Whitfield filed his third motion for 
postconviction relief.  Whitfield claimed that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction 
because he was indicted on different charges (attempted murder in the first degree 
and kidnapping in the first degree) than were brought at his preliminary hearing 
(assault in the second degree and kidnapping in the second degree).  Whitfield also 
argued that the difference in charges deprived him of due process and equal 
protection and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  On June 20, 
2013, the Superior Court issued its decision denying Whitfield’s third motion for 
post-conviction relief.5  The Superior Court concluded that Whitfield’s 
jurisdictional argument lacked merit and that his motion was barred by the 
procedural requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) (“Rule 61”).6  This 
appeal followed. 
(6) 
On appeal, Whitfield claims that the difference in charges between the 
preliminary hearing and the grand jury indictment meant that the Superior Court 
lacked jurisdiction and deprived him of due process and equal protection.  
Whitfield did not brief the ineffective assistance of counsel claim he made below 
and has therefore waived that claim.7     
                                                 
5 State v. Whitfield, 2013 WL 3356127 (Del. Super. Ct. June 20, 2013). 
6 Id. at *1-3. 
7 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (Del. 1997). 
 
4
(7) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the 
denial of Whitfield’s third motion for postconviction relief should be affirmed on 
the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision of June 20, 2013.  The 
Superior Court did not err in concluding that Whitfield’s jurisdictional argument 
lacked merit, his motion was procedurally barred, and that he failed to demonstrate 
any exceptions to the procedural requirements of Rule 61(i). 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice