Title: Smallwood v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 473, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 13, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DERRICK SMALLWOOD, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 473, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 0103019016A 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 6, 2006 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: February 13, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of February 2007, upon consideration of appellant’s 
opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Derrick Smallwood, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion to extend the three-year limitations 
period for filing a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 61(i)(1).  The State has filed a motion to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Smallwood’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm. 
 
2
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury convicted 
Smallwood in January 2002 of two counts of attempted murder and related 
offenses.  This Court affirmed his convictions on appeal.1  The mandate 
issued on January 23, 2003.  Thus, under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, 
Smallwood had three years from January 23, 2003 in which to file a timely 
motion for postconviction relief.2   
(3) 
On May 31, 2006, Smallwood filed a motion with the Superior 
Court requesting the court to grant an extension of the three year limitations 
period to permit Smallwood to file a motion for postconviction relief.  The 
Superior Court denied the motion, and this appeal ensued.  
(4) 
Under the circumstances, we find it manifest that the judgment 
of the Superior Court should be affirmed.  Superior Court Criminal Rule 
45(b)(2) expressly provides that the Superior Court “may not extend the time 
for taking any action” under Rule 61(i)(1).  To the extent Smallwood now 
contends that the procedural bar of Rule 61(i)(1) is inapplicable to his 
                                                 
1 Smallwood v. State, 2002 WL 31883015 (Del. Dec. 26, 2002). 
2 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
 
3
postconviction claims under Rule 61(i)(5),3 Smallwood did not raise that 
contention below, and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal.4   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
3 Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(5) provides, in part, that the limitations 
period contained in Rule 61(i)(1) is inapplicable to a “claim that the court lacked 
jurisdiction or to a colorable claim that there was a miscarriage of justice….” 
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8.