Title: Benson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JEREMY BENSON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 257, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. I.D. No. 1712014868 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: August 4, 2023 
Decided: 
August 8, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Jeremy Benson, filed a notice of appeal from an order 
that the Superior Court entered on June 28, 2023, establishing a schedule for the 
remaining briefing on Benson’s motion for postconviction relief.  The Senior Court 
Clerk issued a notice directing Benson to show cause why this appeal should not be 
dismissed based on the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal in 
a criminal matter.  In response to the notice to show cause, Benson argues that the 
Superior Court erred by extending the schedule for the postconviction briefing rather 
than granting Benson’s motion for a default judgment. 
 
2 
(2) 
Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a final 
judgment in a criminal case.1  The Superior Court’s scheduling order is an 
interlocutory, not final, order. The Court therefore does not have jurisdiction to 
review this appeal.2 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
 
 
1 DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 11(1)(b); Mujica v. State, 2020 WL 5870109 (Del. Oct. 1, 2020). 
2 See Mujica, 2020 WL 5870109, at *1 n.4 (dismissing appeal from interlocutory order in a 
criminal matter, but noting that the Court “would have jurisdiction of a timely appeal from a final 
order denying a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, which 
could include interlocutory rulings” in the postconviction proceedings).