Whitfield v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MUSTAFA WHITFIELD, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § 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. ORDER 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 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). 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief Justice 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
