Title: Hall v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GIBSON HALL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§   No. 363, 2018 
§ 
§   Court Below—Superior Court 
§   of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   Cr. ID No. 88004234DI (N) 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 27, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 17, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, the Court 
concludes that: 
(1) 
On July 16, 2018, the appellant, Gibson Hall, filed a notice of appeal 
from a Superior Court order, dated June 18, 2018, denying his motion for transcripts.  
Hall sought the transcripts to provide documentation in support of postconviction 
relief.  The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Hall to show cause why this 
appeal should not be dismissed based upon this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear 
an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter.  In his response to the notice to show 
cause, Hall argues that the order denying his motion for transcripts is final and 
immediately appealable.  
2 
 
(2) 
Hall is mistaken.  Under the Delaware Constitution only a final 
judgment may be reviewed by the Court in a criminal case.1  The Superior Court’s 
June 18, 2018 order denying Hall’s motion for transcripts is an interlocutory order.2  
The denial of a motion for transcripts is not appealable as a final order before entry 
of a final judgment on a motion for postconviction relief.3  In denying Hall’s motion 
for transcripts the Superior Court noted that a motion for postconviction relief would 
likely be subject to summary dismissal under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2), 
but Hall did not file a motion for postconviction relief and the Superior Court did 
not deny a motion for postconviction relief in the June 18, 2018 order.     
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). 
2 See, e.g., Davis v. State, 2014 WL 4243634, at *1 (Del. Aug. 26, 2014) (holding that order 
denying motion for transcripts to pursue further postconviction remedies was interlocutory). 
3 Id.