Title: Maniscalco v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 294, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 7, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
VINCENTE R. MANISCALCO, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 294, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1402002044  
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 23, 2016 
 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 7, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 7th day of July 2016, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 10, 2016, the appellant, Vincente R. Maniscalco, filed a 
notice of appeal from a Superior Court order purportedly dated November 24, 
2014.  Maniscalco attached a sentencing order dated January 13, 2015 and a 
modified sentencing order dated January 16, 2015 to his notice of appeal.  The 
Superior Court docket reflects that Maniscalco pled guilty on November 24, 2014 
and that a Superior Court commissioner denied Maniscalco’s first motion for 
postconviction relief on June 1, 2016.   
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to show cause directing 
Maniscalco to show why his appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack 
 
2 
 
of jurisdiction to consider an appeal directly from the decision of a Superior Court 
commissioner.  In his response to the notice to show cause, Maniscalco argues the 
substantive merits of his claims and does not address the jurisdictional defect.   
(3) 
In the absence of intermediate review by a Superior Court judge, this 
Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from a Superior Court 
commissioner’s order.1  Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.   
(4) 
We note that, under 10 Del. C. § 512(b)(1)(b), a Superior Court judge 
may refer a motion for postconviction relief to a Superior Court commissioner to 
make findings and recommendations to be reviewed by the judge de novo.  In this 
case, the commissioner’s June 1, 2016 order purported to deny Maniscalco’s 
motion for postconviction relief rather than making findings and recommendations 
to be reviewed by the referring judge.  We further note that on June 28, 2016, after 
Maniscalco filed his notice of appeal and response to the notice to show cause, the 
Superior Court entered an order adopting the commissioner’s ruling and denying 
Maniscalco’s motion for postconviction relief. 
(5) 
Because the form of the commissioner’s ruling had the appearance of 
a final order, there is the possibility that the appellant did not understand that his 
next step in seeking relief from that order was to file exceptions to the Superior 
Court.  Under these circumstances, we direct the Clerk of this Court to provide a 
                                                 
1 Johnson v. State, 884 A.2d 475, 479 (Del. 2005). 
 
3 
 
copy of this Order to the Superior Court commissioner and to the referring judge 
with instructions that Maniscalco should be permitted ten days from the date of this 
Order to file any objections to the commissioner’s June 1, 2016 ruling.  Upon the 
expiration of the ten–day period, the Superior Court shall conduct the required de 
novo review and issue a final order in the case.  Maniscalco may then file a notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s final order. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice