Title: Seawright v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DARREN SEAWRIGHT,
Defendant Below,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below,
Appellee.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. 269, 2002
Court Below: Superior Court
of the State of Delaware
in and for Kent County
Cr. ID No. 9810019586
Submitted: May 14, 2002
Decided:
May 21, 2002
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 21st day of May 2002, it appears to the Court that:
1.
On May 14, 2002, the appellant, Darren Seawright, filed a pro se
notice of appeal from the Report and Recommendation of a Superior Court
Commissioner dated May 3, 2002, which recommended that Seawright’s
postconviction motion filed in that Court be dismissed.
2.
Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a
final judgment in a criminal case.1  A Commissioner’s Report and
Recommendation is not a final order for purposes of appeal.  Before appealing
                                                 
1 DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). 
- 2 -
to this Court, Seawright first should have filed for a review de novo by a
Superior Court judge pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 62(a)(5).  This
Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Superior Court Commissioner’s
interlocutory ruling in this case.2 
3.
The Court concludes, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(c), that
the within criminal interlocutory appeal, on its face, manifestly fails to invoke
the Court’s jurisdiction, and that the giving of notice of said defect would serve
no meaningful purpose and that any response would be of no avail.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice
                                                 
2See Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400 (Del. 1997); Rash v. State, 318 A.2d 603 (Del
1974).