Title: Belfield v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 255, 2021
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 15, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHERWOOD N. BELFIELD, 
 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 255, 2021 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1810000958A (S) 
§                    1810000958B (S) 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 20, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 15, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ 
responses, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 12, 2021, the appellant, Sherwood Belfield, filed a notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s July 16, 2021 order denying his motion for an 
evidentiary hearing.  On December 6, 2021, the Senior Clerk issued a notice 
directing Belfield to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed based upon 
this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.  In his 
response to notice to show cause, Belfield argues that we should consider his appeal 
 
2 
 
because the Superior Court did not transfer the record to this Court as directed by 
the Senior Court Clerk and that the Superior Court erred by denying his motion for 
postconviction relief.  In his amended response, Belfield argues that this Court 
should liberally construe his pleadings in light of his limited educational 
background.  Belfield does not address the jurisdictional issue raised in the notice to 
show cause.  The State has also responded to the notice to show cause and argues 
that Belfield’s appeal should be dismissed as either an untimely attempt to appeal 
the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief or an 
impermissible appeal from an interlocutory order. 
(2) 
It is not entirely clear if Belfield filed the motion for an evidentiary 
hearing in an effort to re-litigate his first motion for postconviction relief—which 
the Superior Court denied on March 9, 20211—or to expand the record in order to 
file a second motion for postconviction relief.  In any event, this appeal must be 
dismissed.   
(3) 
First, if Belfield filed the motion in an effort to re-litigate his motion 
for postconviction relief, it was filed well outside of the time for a motion for 
reargument2 and did not toll the time for filing a timely notice of appeal from the 
Superior Court’s March 9, 2021 order.  A timely notice of appeal from the Superior 
 
1 State v. Belfield, 2021 WL 872648 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2021). 
2 A timely motion for reargument was due on or before March 15, 2021. See State v. Brown, 2019 
WL 3249402, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. July 18, 2019). 
 
3 
 
Court’s March 9, 2021 order was due on or before April 8, 2021.  Time is a 
jurisdictional requirement.3  Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to 
file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel—a claim that 
Belfield does not make—an untimely appeal cannot be considered.4 
(4) 
Second, if the motion was filed because Belfield intends to file a future 
motion for postconviction relief, the Superior Court’s order denying it is 
interlocutory.5  This Court has no jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order in a 
criminal case.6   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         Chief Justice 
 
 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
5 See, e.g., Whitfield v. State, 2007 WL 2751208 (Del. Aug. 13, 2007) (dismissing an appeal from 
the denial of a motion to compel evidence to support an as-yet-unfiled motion for postconviction 
relief). 
6 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).