IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ALONZO MORRIS,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 320, 2021

§

§

§

§ Court Below–Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1206005058 (N)

§ 

§

Submitted: November 1, 2021

 Decided: November 4, 2021

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 

Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s 

responses, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On October 12, 2021, the appellant, Alonzo Morris, filed a notice of 

appeal from two Superior Court orders—dated September 20, 2021, and October 5, 

2021—denying his motions for transcripts at State expense. The Senior Court Clerk 

issued a notice directing Morris to show cause why this appeal should not be 

dismissed based on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal 

in a criminal matter. In his responses to the notice to show cause, Morris asserts that 

he needs the guilty plea colloquy transcript in order to pursue relief in the Superior 
2

Court. Morris also claims that the Superior Court mischaracterized his motions as 

requesting transcripts at State expense because Morris has made his own financial 

arrangements to pay for the transcripts. We note that Morris need not move to obtain 

transcripts if he intends to pay for their preparation. He may, as he represents that 

he has done, simply make payment arrangements with the court reporter’s office to 

obtain the transcripts that he desires. The Superior Court’s orders denying Morris’s 

motions for transcripts at State expense did not affect Morris’s ability to 

independently pay for and obtain transcripts. 

(2) In any event, the Superior Court’s September 20, 2021 and October 5, 

2021 orders denying Morris’s motions for transcripts are not subject to review at this 

time because they are interlocutory orders.1 Under the Delaware Constitution, only 

a final judgment may be reviewed by the Court in a criminal case.2 “An order 

constitutes a final judgment where it leaves nothing for future determination or 

consideration.”3 The motions for transcripts reflect that Morris seeks the transcripts 

to supplement a motion for collateral review and a petition for an extraordinary writ. 

The Superior Court docket reflects that, to date, no motions or petitions are pending 

in Morris’s case. To the extent that Morris seeks transcripts at State expense in 

connection with the future filing of a motion for collateral review or a petition for 

1 Davis v. State, 2014 WL 4243634, at *1 (Del. Aug. 26, 2014).

2 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).

3 Robinson v. State, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
3

an extraordinary writ, if Morris is unsuccessful on the merits of such a motion or 

petition, he may then appeal to this Court for a review of that final judgment as well 

as the interlocutory ruling relating to the denial of a request for transcript at State 

expense.4 At this point in time, however, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider 

Morris’s interlocutory appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves

Justice

4 Christopher v. State, 2009 WL 2841191, at *1 (Del. Sept. 4, 2009).