Title: Washington v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 264, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 14, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAEL T. WASHINGTON, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 264, 2023 
§   
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No.  0909018475 A/B (N) 
§                                         
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 9, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 14, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause, the appellant’s response, the 
appellant’s motion for a stay or remand, and the Superior Court docket, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
In November 2010, a Superior Court jury convicted the appellant, 
Michael T. Washington, of two counts of manslaughter and two counts of possession 
of a firearm during the commission of a felony.  Following a bench trial, Washington 
was also found guilty of possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited.  In 
February 2011, the Superior Court sentenced Washington to an aggregate sixty-four 
years of incarceration followed by decreasing levels of supervision.  We affirmed 
2 
 
Washington’s convictions and sentence on appeal.1  Since 2012, Washington has 
filed three unsuccessful motions for postconviction relief2 and an unsuccessful 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.3 
(2) 
On May 25, 2023, Washington filed in the Superior Court a motion to 
compel the various lawyers who have represented him in connection with his trial 
and appeals (specifically, Patrick Collins, Esquire; Anthony Figliola Jr., Esquire; 
Stephanie Volturo, Esquire; and Andrew Witherell, Esquire) to turn over to him any 
documentation they have in their possession related to Washington’s case so that he 
may prepare and file a motion for postconviction relief.  After soliciting counsel’s 
positions on the motion and noting that counsel had largely (if not completely) 
fulfilled their obligations to Washington, the Superior Court concluded that the 
motion concerned an attorney/client dispute in which the court need not intervene 
and denied the motion (the “Order”).   
(3) 
On July 28, 2023, Washington appealed the Order.  The Senior Court 
Clerk issued a notice directing Washington to show cause why this appeal should 
not be dismissed based upon this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory 
 
1 Washington v. State, 2011 WL 4908250 (Del. Oct. 14, 2011). 
2 See Washington v. State, 2017 WL 1573119 (Del. Apr. 28, 2017) (affirming the denial of 
Washington’s first motion for postconviction relief); Washington v. State, 2022 WL 1041267 (Del. 
Apr. 7, 2022) (affirming the denial of Washington’s second motion for postconviction relief); 
Washington v. State, 2022 WL 4088664 (Del. Sept. 6, 2022) (affirming the denial of Washington’s 
third motion for postconviction relief). 
3 Washington v. May, 2022 WL 4598510 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2022). 
3 
 
appeal in a criminal matter.  In his response to the notice to show cause, Washington 
argues, among other things, that (i) counsel (Mr. Collins, specifically) is providing 
ineffective assistance of counsel and violating the rules of professional responsibility 
by failing to turn over Washington’s complete file to him, and (ii) the Superior Court 
erred when it denied Washington’s motion to compel.  Washington has also filed a 
motion to stay or remand this matter to the Superior Court so that the Superior Court 
can rule on his motion for reconsideration of the Order.4 
(4) 
Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be 
reviewed by the Court in a criminal case.5  The Superior Court’s order denying 
Washington’s motion to compel the production of documents so that he may file a 
motion for postconviction relief is an interlocutory order.  To the extent that 
Washington believes counsel’s action (or inaction) violates the Delaware Rules of 
Professional Conduct, his proper recourse is to file a complaint with the Office of 
Disciplinary Counsel.  To the extent that Washington seeks documents in 
anticipation of filing a motion for postconviction relief, if Washington is 
unsuccessful on the merits of any such motion, he may then appeal to this Court for 
a review of that final judgment as well as any interlocutory rulings of the Superior 
 
4 Because Washington had filed a notice of appeal with this Court, the Superior Court correctly 
observed that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion for reconsideration. 
5 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). 
4 
 
Court.  At this time, however, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Washington’s 
interlocutory appeal.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED.  The appellant’s motion for a stay or remand is 
MOOT. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice