Title: Samuel v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
HARRY SAMUEL,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 577, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr. ID No. 93005924DI
§
§
Submitted: December 6, 2001
  Decided:   December 10, 2001
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 10th day of December 2001, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On November 19, 2001, defendant-appellant Harry Samuel filed
a pro se notice of appeal from the October 16, 2001 order of the Superior
Court denying Samuel’s request for transcripts at State expense.
(2)
On November 21, 2001, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice,
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Samuel to show cause why
this appeal should not be dismissed based upon this Court’s lack of jurisdiction
to entertain an interlocutory appeal.  On December 6, 2001, Samuel filed a
response to the notice to show cause.  In his response, Samuel states his need
1Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1) (b).
2Rash v. State, Del. Supr., 318 A.2d 603 (1974).
-2-
for the transcripts, but does not address the issue of this Court’s lack of
jurisdiction.
(3)
The Superior Court’s order denying Samuel’s request for
transcripts constitutes an interlocutory ruling in this criminal matter.  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.2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice