Title: Whitfield v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MUSTAFA WHITFIELD, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 327, 2005 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID. 0210009174 
§ 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  October 7, 2005 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  December 13, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of December 2005, upon consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Mustafa Whitfield, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief.  We find 
no merit to Whitfield’s appeal.  Accordingly we affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in February 2004, a Superior Court 
jury convicted Whitfield and two codefendants of multiple offenses 
including attempted first degree robbery and weapon charges.  The Superior 
Court sentenced Whitfield to eleven years in prison followed by decreasing 
 
2
levels of supervision.  This Court affirmed Whitfield’s convictions and 
sentences on direct appeal.*  In his motion for postconviction relief, 
Whitfield asserted two claims entitled, respectively, “Illegal Arrest and 
Detention” and “Search and Seizure in Violation of the Fourth Amendment.”  
In essence, however, both claims challenge the veracity of the arresting 
officers’ testimony and the lack of forensic evidence linking him to the 
crime.  The Superior Court noted that Whitfield’s identity as one of the 
perpetrators was argued vigorously at trial.  The Superior Court concluded 
that the circumstantial evidence that tied Whitfield to the crime was 
abundant and thus sufficient for the jury to find him guilty beyond a 
reasonable doubt. 
(3) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions 
and the record below, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior 
Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned 
decision dated June 27, 2005.  The Superior Court did not err in concluding 
that Whitfield’s motion for postconviction relief was without substantive 
merit.  Moreover, because the sufficiency of the evidence was challenged on 
direct appeal, Whitfield’s postconviction motion is barred as previously 
adjudicated under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(4).  
                                                 
* Whitfield v. State, 867 A.2d 168 (Del. 2004). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice