Case Title: Chapman v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 432, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WARREN CHAPMAN, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellee.
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
No. 432, 2003 
 
 
 
Court Below: Superior Court  
of the State of Delaware  
in and for Kent County 
 
Cr. ID No. 9905015253
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: 
September 15, 2003 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
October 6, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 6th day of October 2003, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1. 
On September 2, 2003, the appellant, Warren Chapman, filed a pro 
se notice of appeal from a decision of the Superior Court dated August 13, 2003.  
In its decision, the Superior Court denied Chapman’s request for counsel because 
it found that the issues presented were not complex or difficult. 
 
2. 
On September 3, 2003, the Assistant Clerk of this Court issued a 
notice, pursuant to Supreme Court 29(b), directing Chapman to show cause why 
this appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court's lack of jurisdiction to 
entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.  On September 15, 2003, Chapman filed 
a response to the notice to show cause.  Chapman’s response does not address the 
 
- 2 -
issue of this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal. 
  
3. 
The Superior Court’s refusal to appoint counsel for appellant is 
clearly an interlocutory ruling in this criminal matter.1   
4. 
Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a final 
judgment in a criminal case.2  As a result, this Court does not have jurisdiction to 
review the Superior Court’s interlocutory ruling in this case.3    
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Justice 
 
                                                                 
1See Robinson v. State, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998). 
2Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).   
3See Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400 (Del. 1997); Rash v. State, 318 A.2d 603 (Del. 1974).