Title: Hartmann v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 367, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 13, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DETLEF F. HARTMANN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 367, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 9912000027 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 3, 2004 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: September 27, 2004 
 
 
 
 
Corrected: October 13, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of October 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Detlef Hartmann, filed this appeal from a decision 
of a Superior Court Commissioner, dated August 9, 2004.  The 
Commissioner’s order denied Hartmann’s attempts to reargue the 
Commissioner’s July 21 order granting the State an extension of time in 
which to respond to Hartmann’s motion for postconviction relief.  The Clerk 
of this Court issued a notice to Hartmann to show cause why his appeal 
should be dismissed based on the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to entertain an 
interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. 
 
2
(2) 
Hartmann responded to the notice to show cause on September 3, 
2004.  Hartmann’s response does not address the jurisdictional issue raised in 
the notice to show cause, but instead seeks certification under Supreme Court 
Rule 41 of the issues he wants to raise on appeal. 
 
(3) 
Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may only review a 
final judgment in a criminal case.1  The Superior Court Commissioner’s 
denial of Hartmann’s attempt to reargue the earlier extension order is clearly 
an unappealable interlocutory ruling.2  As a result, this Court does not have 
jurisdiction to review this appeal.3  Moreover, Hartmann’s attempt at 
certification under Rule 41 is unavailing. Under Rule 41, this Court will only 
consider accepting important and urgent questions that are certified to it by 
other Delaware or federal courts.4  Rule 41 does not apply in this case. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). 
2 See Robinson v. State, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998). 
3 See Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400 (Del. 1997). 
4 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 41(a).