Title: Whitfield v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 96, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 20, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
MUSTAFA WHITFIELD,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 96, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. ID No. 0210009174 
                      
 
Submitted: March 26, 2004  
   Decided: April 20, 2004    
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 20th day of April 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Mustafa Whitfield, filed a notice of appeal1 
from the Superior Court’s March 5, 2004 order denying his motion for judgment of 
acquittal in his criminal case.   
 
(2) 
On March 15, 2004, the Clerk wrote to Whitfield’s trial counsel 
requesting that he recognize his continuing obligation under Supreme Court Rule 
26(a) to represent Whitfield in this appeal.  On March 17, 2004, Whitfield’s 
counsel wrote to the Clerk and informed the Court that Whitfield’s sentencing in 
                                                 
1 Whitfield filed a letter on March 11, 2004, which we deemed to be a notice of appeal. 
 
 
-2-
his criminal case had been scheduled for April 16, 2004 and that, once sentencing 
took place, an appeal would be filed. 
 
(3) 
On March 17, 2004, the Clerk issued a notice to Whitfield to show 
cause why his appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) based on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order in a 
criminal case.2  Whitfield responded to the notice to show cause on March 26, 
2004, but did not address the jurisdictional issue.   
 
(4) 
Because the Superior Court’s order denying Whitfield’s motion for 
judgment of acquittal is interlocutory, we have no authority to review it.  Once the 
Superior Court has issued Whitfield’s sentencing order, Whitfield’s counsel will 
file an appeal on his behalf.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1) (b); Robinson v. State, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998) (the 
denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal in a criminal case is an interlocutory ruling.)