Title: Carr v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 418, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 5, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRUCE CARR, 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 418, 2013 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and   
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 82002234DI  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
Submitted: August 14, 2013 
Decided: 
September 5, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 5th day of September 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(b)(1) requires the use of a 
“prescribed form” when filing a motion for postconviction relief.1  Under Rule 
61(c), “[i]f a motion does not substantially comply with the requirements of 
subdivision (b) . . . the prothonotary shall return [the motion] to the movant, if a 
judge of the court so directs.”2 
(2) 
This appeal is from a July 25, 2013 “notice of noncompliance” that 
issued to the appellant under Rule 61(b)(1) and(c).  Upon receipt of the appeal, the 
                                          
 
1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(b)(1). 
2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(c). 
2 
 
Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should 
not be dismissed based upon this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to entertain an 
interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter.3 
(3) 
In his response to the notice to show cause, the appellant contends that 
the requirements of the “prescribed form” prevent him from raising a claim for 
postconviction relief so as to avoid the procedural bars of Rule 61(i).  The 
appellant does not address the jurisdictional issue raised by the Clerk’s notice to 
show cause. 
(4) 
Under the Delaware Constitution only a final judgment may be 
reviewed by the Court in a criminal case.4  The Court has no jurisdiction to 
entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order in a criminal case.5  In this case, the 
Superior Court’s July 25, 2013 “notice of noncompliance” is an interlocutory order 
in a criminal case and is not appealable.6   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
3 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).  
4 Id. 
5 Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400 (Del. 1997).  
6 See Bass v. State, 1993 WL 61686 (Del. Feb. 9. 1993) (dismissing appeal from Rule 61 “notice 
of noncompliance” for lack of jurisdiction).