Title: Atston v. State et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JERRY LEE ALSTON,
     
Plaintiff Below,
     
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE;
ATTORNEY GENERAL M.
JANE BRADY; DELAWARE
STATE POLICE AS AN
ENTITY; NICOLE C. PARTON
(00220) OF TROOP E, STATE
POLICE
     
Defendants Below,
     
Appellees.
No. 98, 2002
Court Below: Superior Court       
 of the State of Delaware in and    
 for Kent County
C.A. No. 01C-09-030
Submitted:  March 22, 2002
Decided:     April 1, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 1st day of April 2002, it appears to the Court that:
(1)  On February 25, 2002, this Court received from the appellant,
Jerry Lee Alston, a letter stating his intention to appeal from a Superior Court
decision of January 28, 2002, which granted the Motion to Dismiss of
Attorney General M. Jane Brady from the captioned matter.  On March 8,
-2-
2002, in compliance with a direction from this Court, Mr. Alston filed a
formal notice of appeal from that decision.
(2)  On March 11, 2002, the Clerk of the Court issued to Mr. Alston
a notice to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for his failure to
comply with Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory
order.
(3)  Mr. Alston filed a response to the Notice to Show Cause on March
22, 2002.  In his response, Mr. Alston raises various points and arguments on
numerous topics.  In a separate letter accompanying the response to the Notice
to Show Cause, Mr. Alston contends that the purpose of the document is to
comply with Supreme Court Rule 42.  He also appears to attempt to present
the Court with certified questions of law under Supreme Court Rule 41.
(4)  Supreme Court Rule 42 sets forth the requirements for filing an
interlocutory appeal.  Mr. Alston has not complied with those requirements.
 Supreme Court Rule 41 provides that only courts may apply to the Supreme
Court for a certification of question of law.
-3-
(5)  Absent compliance with Rule 42, the jurisdiction of this Court is
limited to the review of final judgments of trial courts.1  An order is deemed
final if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the
courts final act in the case.2   Mr. Alston has attempted to appeal the
dismissal of one party from the pending Superior Court case.  The Superior
Court has not issued its final judgment in that case.  Appellant fails to
appreciate the strong policy of this Court not to accept piecemeal appeals from
a single proceeding in a trial court.3
(6)  The proceedings before the Superior Court are ongoing.  The
judgment of January 28, 2002, is not the Court’s final order in the case. 
Accordingly, an appeal from the Superior Court to this Court is premature
absent compliance with the requirements for taking an interlocutory appeal in
accordance with Supreme Court Rule 42.  Appellant has not complied with
this Rule.
                                                 
1   Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).
2  J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648,
650 (Del. 1973).
3 Pinkowski v. Burris, Del. Supr., No. 396, 1994, Walsh, J. (Jan. 30, 1995)
(Order).
-4-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that appellants appeal be,
and it hereby is, DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
s/Joseph T. Walsh
Justice