Title: Kostyshyn v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 89, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 2, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PETER KOSTYSHYN,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 89, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0908020496 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: March 19, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 2, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 2nd day of April 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On March 4, 2013, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s February 21, 2013 order denying his 
request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act.  The appellant 
is an incarcerated inmate, having been convicted of criminal offenses in the 
Superior Court on November 24, 2010. 
 
(2) 
On March 4, 2013, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why his 
appeal should not be dismissed due to this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to 
 
2
entertain an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter.1  The appellant filed a 
response to the notice to show cause on March 19, 2013.  The appellant 
states that he opposes dismissal of this matter.  He further asks this Court to 
remand the matter to the Superior Court for a full discussion of his 
complaints.   
 
(3) 
The Superior Court’s February 21, 2013 order denying the 
appellant’s request for documents is an interlocutory, and not a final, order.2  
Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be reviewed by 
this Court in a criminal case.3  As a result, this Court has no jurisdiction to 
consider the appellant’s interlocutory appeal.4  Therefore, the appeal must be 
dismissed.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(1) (b). 
2 Showell Poultry v. Delmarva Poultry Corp., 146 A.2d 794, 795-96 (Del. 1958) (a final 
judgment is one which determines the merits of the controversy and leaves nothing for 
future consideration). 
3 Del. Const. art. IV, §11(1) (b). 
4 Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400, 402 (Del. 1997).