Title: Wyant v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WARREN WYANT, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 498, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 83000839DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  September 28, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  
October 12, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of October 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
This is an appeal from the Superior Court’s August 20, 2007 
order in a criminal case, which denied the appellant’s motion for trial 
transcripts.  On September 18, 2007, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to 
show cause directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not 
be dismissed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) based on this Court’s 
lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.1 
 
(2) 
On September 28, 2007, the appellant responded to the notice 
to show cause.  In the response, the appellant states that this Court has 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(b) (1). 
 
2
jurisdiction to consider the appeal under the collateral order exception to the 
general rule that only final orders may be reviewed by this Court.2   
 
(3) 
The circumstances of Gannett were quite different from those 
presented here.  In Gannett, this Court accepted an interlocutory appeal from 
a Superior Court order that “determined a [civil] matter independent of the 
issues to be resolved in the criminal proceeding itself, bound persons who 
were non-parties in the underlying criminal proceeding and had a 
substantial, continuing effect on important rights.”3  The instant appeal is 
from an interlocutory order in a criminal case, a matter over which this 
Court does not have jurisdiction, and, therefore, it must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal is 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
                                         Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
2 Gannett Co., Inc. v. State, 565 A.2d 895, 900 (Del. 1989). 
3 Id. (quoting United States v. Schiavo, 504 F.2d 1, 5 (3d Cir. 1974)).