Title: White v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DAVID A. WHITE,
      §
      §
Defendant Below,
      § No. 139, 2001
Appellant,
      §
      § Court Below – Superior Court of the
v.
      § State of Delaware, in and for New
      § Castle County in Cr.A.Nos. IN96-
STATE OF DELAWARE,
      § 08-0389 through 0391.
      §
Plaintiff Below,
      §
Appellee.
      § Def. ID No. 9604003355
   Submitted:   April 11, 2001
   Decided:     April 27, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 27th day of April 2001, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On March 30, 2001, the appellant, David A. White, filed a
pro se notice of appeal from a decision of the Superior Court dated
February 20, 2001.  In its February 20 decision, the Superior Court denied
White’s request for transcripts on the ground that White did not require the
2
transcripts for a direct appeal.1  The Superior Court also denied White’s
motion to have the Superior Court order the Attorney General or Public
Defender to provide documents.
(2)
On March 30, 2001, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice,
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing that White show cause
why this appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court’s lack of
jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.  On April 11,
2001, White filed a response to the notice to show cause.  White’s
response does not address the issue of this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to
entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.
(3)
Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only
a final judgment in a criminal case.2  The Superior Court’s February 20
refusal to provide transcripts to White is clearly an interlocutory ruling in
                                          
1 On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the appellant’s convictions and sentence.  White
v. State, Del. Supr., No. 505, 1997, Veasey, C.J., 1998 WL 985338 (Nov. 16, 1998)
(ORDER).
2 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).
3
this criminal case.3  As a result, this Court does not have jurisdiction to
review the Superior Court’s February 20 interlocutory ruling.4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
 
      Chief Justice
                                          
3 See Robinson v. State, Del. Supr., 704 A.2d 269, 271 (1998); Mundy v. State, Del.
Supr., No. 347, 1999, Berger, J., 1999 WL 636615 (Aug. 5, 1999) (ORDER).
4 See Gottlieb v. State, Del. Supr., 697 A.2d 400 (1997); Rash v. State, Del. Supr., 318
A.2d 603 (1974).