Case Title: Floyd v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 516, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES FLOYD,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 516, 2006 
 
Defendant Below-   
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
§ 
ID # 0212002535 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  February 28, 2007 
   Decided:  April 25, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 25th day of April 2007, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties 
and their contentions at oral argument, it appears to the Court that: 
(1)  
Appellant James Floyd appeals his Superior Court convictions of 
Assault First Degree, Attempted Robbery First Degree and two counts of 
Possession of a Deadly Weapon during the Commission of a Felony.  Floyd 
contends that a Superior Court Commissioner’s competency determination violated 
his due process rights.  This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear direct appeals from an 
order of a Superior Court Commissioner.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 
 2
(2)  
On December 3, 2002, Viola Reeves went to Best Liquor Store in 
Wilmington to purchase pretzels and potato chips.  While inside, Floyd told 
Reeves to give him some money.  He then took Reeves’ purse and ran out of the 
store.  Floyd soon returned to the store and stabbed Reeves three times in the back 
and twice in the chest with a knife.  Roland Coleman witnessed the stabbing and 
saw Floyd run into a nearby home.  Police later went to that home and found 
Floyd.  Although Coleman was never able to positively identify the assailant, 
Reeves testified that Floyd committed the stabbing. 
(3)  
A competency hearing was held on May 20, 2005 before a Superior 
Court Commissioner.1  The Commissioner ultimately found Floyd competent to 
stand trial.  Floyd did not appeal the Commissioner’s decision to the Superior 
Court as provided by Superior Court Criminal Rule 62.2 
(4)  
The Delaware Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over criminal 
matters is limited to final judgments of the Superior Court.3  This Court does not 
                                          
 
1 Floyd was previously determined incompetent after a competency hearing in 2004. 
2 Rule 62(a)(5)(ii) provides the framework from which an appeal can be taken from a 
Commissioner’s decision.   
Within 10 days after filing of a Commissioner’s proposed findings of fact and 
recommendations under subparagraph (5), any party may serve and file written 
objections to the Commissioner’s order which set forth with particularity the basis 
for the objections.  The written objections shall be entitled “Appeal from 
Commissioner’s Findings of Fact and Recommendations.”  
3 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b) (“The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction . . . [t]o receive 
appeals from the Superior Court in criminal causes, upon application of the accused in all cases 
in which the sentence shall be death, imprisonment exceeding one month, or fine exceeding One 
 3
have jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from a decision of a Superior Court 
Commissioner without intermediate review of a Superior Court judge.  In Johnson 
v. State,4 we held that “the Superior Court is the only forum in which a defendant 
can seek review of a Commissioner’s decision.  In the absence of that intermediate 
review by a Superior Court judge, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear an 
appeal from any action taken by a Commissioner.”5 
(5)  
At oral argument, Floyd’s appellate counsel attempted to distinguish 
this case from Johnson on the ground that Floyd’s trial counsel continued to raise 
the competency issue throughout the proceedings and the Superior Court judge 
rejected those concerns.  This argument was not briefed and therefore, is not “fairly 
presented.”  The briefing in this case discusses only on the decision of the 
Commissioner finding Floyd competent and makes no reference to any appealable 
                                                                                                                                        
Hundred Dollars, and in such other cases as shall be provided by law; and to determine finally all 
matters of appeal on the judgments and proceedings of said Superior Court in criminal causes: 
Provided, however, that appeals from the Superior Court in cases of prosecution under Section 8 
of Article V of this Constitution shall be governed by the provisions of that Section.” 
4 884 A.2d 475 (Del. 2005). 
5 Id. at 479; see Carr v. State, 757 A.2d 1277 (Del. 2000) (dismissing appeal from a Superior 
Court Commissioner’s VOP sentencing because “[t]he Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is 
limited to decisions of judges of a court.”); see also Redden v. McGill, 549 A.2d 695, 697 
(dismissing appeal from Family Court Master on the basis that a master’s ruling does not 
constitute a ruling by the “Court”); Postles v. Div. of Child Support Enforcement, 784 A.2d 1081 
(Del. 2001) (dismissing an appeal from a Family Court commissioner and explaining that the 
“Court does not have any jurisdiction to consider an appeal-any appeal-from an order of a 
Family Court Commissioner.”). 
 4
act by a Superior Court judge.  Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 8, the 
argument is waived.   
(6)  
Even assuming that the argument has been fairly presented, it is 
without merit.  There is nothing in the record currently before the Court revealing 
any application made to the Superior Court trial judge for a new competency 
hearing.  Therefore, there is no Superior Court order from which an appeal can be 
taken. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice