Case Title: Kostyshyn v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 267, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-08-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PETER KOSTYSHYN,  
 
' 
No.  267, 2004 
' 
Defendant Below,  
 
' 
Appellant,  
 
 
' 
Court BelowBSuperior Court 
' 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
 
 
 
 
' 
for New Castle County   
' 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
' 
' 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
' 
Def.  ID No.  0304020154 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
' 
 
 
   
 
Submitted: July 27, 2004 
 
Decided: 
August 17, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 17th day of August 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 23, 2004, the appellant, Peter Kostyshyn (Kostyshyn), 
filed a pro se notice of appeal on his behalf and on behalf of his co-defendant, 
Patricia Kostyshyn.  Kostyshyn seeks to appeal a decision of the Superior Court 
dated April 22, 2004, that granted a motion to sever.  Kostyshyn, who is 
represented by counsel in the Superior Court, is scheduled to begin his trial on 
September 8, 2004.  Kostyshyn=s co-defendant, Patricia Kostyshyn, who is also 
 
 
2 
represented by counsel, was tried and convicted on April 27, 2004, and is 
awaiting sentencing.1 
(2) 
 It is well-settled Delaware law that only a member of the Bar of 
this Court, a party appearing pro se, or an attorney admitted pro hac vice may 
file papers on behalf of a party.2  Kostyshyn is not an attorney.  He may not file 
a notice of appeal on behalf of Patricia Kostyshyn.   
(3) 
On June 23, 2004, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice directing 
that Kostyshyn show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for this 
Court=s lack of jurisdiction to consider a criminal interlocutory appeal.  
Kostyshyn has requested an extension of time to respond to the notice to show 
cause. 
                                                 
1See State v.  Kostyshyn, Del.  Super., Def.  ID No.  030402151. 
2Supr.  Ct.  R.  12; In re Coleman, 1991 WL 28900 (Del.  Supr.)  (citing Delaware 
State Bar Ass=n v.  Alexander, 386 A.2d 652 (Del.  1978); Townsend v.  Griffith, 570 A.2d 
1157 (Del.  1990)). 
 
 
3 
(4) 
Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a 
final judgment in a criminal case.3  The granting of a motion to sever in the 
Superior Court is not a final appealable order.  This Court does not have 
jurisdiction to consider Kostyshyn=s criminal interlocutory appeal.4 
(5) 
The Court concludes, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(c), that 
Kostyshyn=s criminal interlocutory appeal, on its face, manifestly fails to invoke 
the Court=s jurisdiction.  Consequently, any response filed by Kostyshyn to the 
notice to show cause would be of no avail.    
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Kostyshyn=s request for an 
extension of time to respond to the notice to show cause is DENIED.   This 
appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(c). 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
3Del.  Const.  Art.  IV, ' 11(1)(b). 
4See Gottlieb v.  State, 697 A.2d 400 (Del.  1997); State v.  Cooley, 430 A.2d 789 
(Del.  1981); Rash v.  State, 318 A.2d 603 (Del.  1974).