Case Title: Waples v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2021-01-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAVAGHN WAPLES, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 367, 2020 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1812013462B (S) 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 30, 2020 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
January 7, 2021 
 
Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On November 2, 2020, the appellant, Javaghn Waples, filed a notice of 
appeal from his January 28, 2020 conviction for possession of a firearm by a person 
prohibited.  As Waples acknowledged in his notice of appeal and as reflected on the 
docket, the Superior Court has not yet sentenced Waples.  The Superior Court docket 
reflects that, on April 3, 2020, the Superior Court granted defense counsel’s request 
to continue sentencing until Waples could appear in open court.1  The docket also 
 
1 For most of the judicial emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial 
courts have not held in-person hearings with incarcerated defendants. 
2 
 
reflects that the Superior Court recently granted the motion to withdraw filed by 
defense counsel.  Waples has filed a motion for appointment of counsel that is 
currently pending.  The Superior Court docket does not reflect that Waples’ former 
counsel or Waples have requested sentencing by video.   
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Waples to show cause 
why this appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction 
under Article IV, § 11(1)(b) of the Delaware Constitution to hear an interlocutory 
appeal in a criminal matter.  In his response to the notice to show cause, Waples 
addresses his inability to obtain the materials he needs for his motion to proceed in 
forma pauperis, but does not address the interlocutory nature of his appeal.   
(3) 
Under the Delaware Constitution, the Court may review only a final 
judgment in a criminal case.2  Because Waples has not yet been sentenced for his 
criminal conviction, this appeal is interlocutory and the Court has no jurisdiction to 
consider it.3  After the Superior Court sentences Waples, he may file an appeal.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
Justice 
 
2 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). 
3 Cirwithian v. State, 2019 WL 7041892, at *1 (Del. Dec. 20, 2019).