Case Title: Newton v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 361, 2014

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-07-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SYE C. NEWTON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 361, 2014 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§ 
§  Cr. Nos. 0507002947 and 
§  0601016797 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 10, 2014 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 30, 2014 
 
 
 
 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 30th day of July 2014, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In January 2014, the appellant, Sye C. Newton, filed a motion for 
postconviction relief from convictions in Cr. Nos. 0507002947 and 0601016797. 
(2) 
In a Notice of Noncompliance dated June 3, 2014, the Superior Court 
informed Newton that it was returning his postconviction motion to him because 
the motion sought relief from convictions entered at different times.  Under 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(b)(3) (“Rule 61”), judgments of conviction 
entered at different times must be challenged in separate motions and not in one 
2 
 
motion.  If a postconviction motion does not substantially comply with Rule 61(b), 
then a judge may direct the prothonotary to return the motion to the movant.1    
(3) 
On July 2, 2014, Newton filed a notice of appeal from the Notice of 
Noncompliance.        
(4) 
Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the Senior Court Clerk issued a 
notice under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Newton to show cause why the 
appeal should not be dismissed for the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider an 
interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter.   
(5) 
In his response to the notice show cause, Newton argues that the 
Notice of Noncompliance decided the issue of filing, he would be prejudiced if he 
had to re-file his motion, and he should have the opportunity to present the merits 
of his motion.  Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may only review a 
final judgment in a criminal case.2  The Notice of Noncompliance is an 
unappealable interlocutory order.3  Thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction to 
review this appeal.4    
                                                 
1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(c). 
2 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).  
3 Carr v. State, 2013 WL 4789746 (Del. Sept. 5, 2013) (finding appeal of notice of 
noncompliance for failure to use form required by Rule 61(b)(1) was interlocutory order and not 
appealable). 
4 Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400, 401 (Del. 1997). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice