Case Title: Reynolds v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 216, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-07-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RANDALL R. REYNOLDS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellee.
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
No. 216, 2004 
 
 
 
Court Below: Superior Court  
of the State of Delaware  
in and for Sussex County 
Def. ID No. 91S05508DI 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 18, 2004 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 19, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 19th day of July 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On May 21, 2004, the appellant, Randall Reynolds, filed a pro se 
notice of appeal from a decision of the Superior Court dated May 5, 2004.  In its 
decision, the Superior Court denied Reynolds’ “Motion for Expansion of Record” 
because there was no pending Rule 61 application before the Court. 
 
(2) 
On May 28, 2004, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice, pursuant to 
Supreme Court 29(b), directing Reynolds 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 June 9, 2004, Reynolds filed a response to the notice to 
 
- 2 -
show cause.  Reynolds’ response does not address the issue of this Court’s lack of 
jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.   
 
(3) 
On June 18, 2004, at the Court’s request, the State filed a response to 
Reynolds’ response to the notice to show cause.  As the State points out, it is clear 
from the record that the May 5, 2004, decision of the Superior Court denying 
Reynolds’ request for expansion of the record is an interlocutory order, not a final 
criminal judgment. 
(4) 
Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a 
final judgment in a criminal case.1  As a result, this Court does not have 
jurisdiction to review the Superior Court’s interlocutory ruling in this case.2    
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                           
1Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).   
2See Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400 (Del. 1997); Rash v. State, 318 A.2d 603 (Del. 
1974).