Case Title: Morgan v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 261, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-08-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS A. MORGAN, 
 
§ 
§ 
Defendant Below,  
 
§  No. 261, 2005 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§  Cr. ID 92S05729DI 
§   
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: July 14, 2005 
Decided: 
August 4, 2005 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of August 2005, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On June 20, 2005, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice, pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing the appellant, Thomas Morgan, to show cause 
why this appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court's lack of jurisdiction to 
entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.1 Morgan seeks to appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order denying his “Motion for Release of Evidence.” 
 
(2) 
On July 1, 2005, Morgan filed a response to the notice to show cause.  In 
his response, Morgan discusses the timeliness of his appeal.  The notice to show 
                         
1  Although the Notice to Show Cause cites to 10 Del. C. § 147, that statute does not address 
the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal.  The correct citation should have 
 
2 
cause, however, directed him to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed 
based on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal, 
not based on untimeliness.  
(3) 
On July 14, 2005, the State filed a reply to Morgan’s response.  The State 
asserts that, until Morgan files and the Superior Court finally rules upon a motion for 
postconviction relief, the Superior Court’s denial of Morgan’s motion for release of 
evidence is an interlocutory order.2 
(4) 
We agree.  Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may 
be reviewed by this Court in a criminal case.3 The denial of a motion for release of 
evidence is not a final appealable order, nor is it appealable as a collateral order before 
the entry of a final order on any postconviction motion.    As a result, this Court has no 
jurisdiction to review Morgan’s interlocutory appeal in this criminal case.4  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
                                                                               
been to Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).  The reference to 10 Del. C. § 147 was made in error. 
2 See In re Middlebrook, Del. Supr., No. 185, 2000, Hartnett, J. (May 30, 2000). 
3 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).   
4 Rash v. State, 318 A.2d 603 (Del. 1974); State v. Cooley, 430 A.2d 789 (Del. 1981).