Case Title: Fatir v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 416, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-11-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AMIR FATIR a/k/a STERLING 
HOBBS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 416, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 75060892DI (N) 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 14, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 29, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response to the notice 
to show cause, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In 1976, a Superior Court jury convicted the appellant, Amir Fatir a/k/a 
Sterling Hobbs, of first-degree murder and other crimes.  After Fatir’s death sentence 
was vacated,1 the Superior Court sentenced Fatir to life imprisonment for the murder 
conviction and to terms of imprisonment for the other crimes.  This Court affirmed 
 
1 Spence v. State, 367 A.2d 983 (Del. 1976). 
2 
 
the Superior Court’s judgment on direct appeal.2  Fatir subsequently filed 
unsuccessful motions and writs for postconviction relief.3 
(2) 
On October 14, 2022, Fatir filed a motion for the transcripts of his 1976 
trial.  He argued that indigent defendants in capital cases are entitled to free 
transcripts and that the 1975 version of Supreme Court Rule 10A provided for 
waiver of the docketing fee and provision of the transcripts at no charge when an 
indigent defendant appealed his criminal conviction.  On October 28, 2022, the 
Superior Court denied the motion.  The Superior Court noted that Fatir’s case was 
no longer a capital case and that Fatir previously had the benefit of appellate and 
postconviction review with the assistance of counsel who had the trial transcripts.     
(3) 
On November 3, 2022, Fatir filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s 
order denying his motion for transcripts.  The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice 
directing Fatir to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed based on this 
Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter.  In 
his response to the notice to show cause, Fatir primarily argues the substantive merits 
of his motion for transcripts, but does contend that the Superior Court’s order is final 
 
2 Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189 (Del. 1980). 
3 See, e.g., Fatir v. State, 2018 WL 6844723, at *1 (Del. Dec. 28, 2018) (affirming the Superior 
Court’s denial of Fatir’s motion for correction of illegal sentence); Fatir v. State, 2015 WL 914184, 
at *1 (Del. Mar. 2, 2015) (affirming the Superior Court’s summary dismissal of Fatir’s fifth motion 
for postconviction relief); In re Fatir, 2007 WL 2713263, at *1 (Del. Sept. 19, 2007) (dismissing 
Fatir’s petition for a writ of certioari). 
3 
 
because he has exhausted all means of obtaining the transcripts.  In the alternative, 
he asks this Court to treat this appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus. 
(4) 
Under the Delaware Constitution, the Court may review only a final 
judgment in a criminal case.4  The Superior Court’s denial of the motion for 
transcripts is an interlocutory, not final, order.5  As this Court has previously noted, 
a criminal defendant who unsuccessfully moves for transcripts to prepare a 
postconviction motion may raise the denial of the motion for transcripts in an appeal 
of the trial court’s final judgment on the motion for postconviction relief.6  At this 
point in time, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Fatir’s interlocutory appeal and 
declines to treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
Justice 
 
4 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). 
5 Powell v. State, 2020 WL 1320920, at *1 (Del. Mar. 19, 2020) (finding an order denying a 
criminal defendant’s motion for transcripts was interlocutory); Christopher v. State, 2009 WL 
2841191, at *1 (Del. Sept. 4, 2009) (same).   
6 Powell, 2020 WL 1320920, at *1 (“To the extent that Powell seeks transcripts in connection with 
his pending motion for postconviction relief, his pending motion to dismiss, or a future filing of a 
Rule 35(a) motion, if Powell is unsuccessful on the merits of any such motion, he may then appeal 
to this Court for a review of that final judgment as well as any interlocutory ruling relating to the 
denial of a request for transcript at State expense.”).