Title: Hill v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 248, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 6, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEVIN L. HILL,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 248, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9607013218 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 30, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 6, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 6th day of June 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On May 17, 2007, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s March 27, 2007 order denying his motion 
for transcripts.  On May 17, 2007, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause 
why the appeal should not be dismissed based on the Court’s lack of 
jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.1 
 
(2) 
On May 30, 2007, the appellant filed his response to the notice 
to show cause.  The appellant argues that his appeal should not be dismissed 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1) (b). 
 
2
because he is indigent and needs the trial transcripts in order to pursue a 
motion for postconviction relief.   
 
(3) 
Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be 
reviewed by this Court in a criminal case.2  The Superior Court’s order 
denying Hill’s motion for transcripts is not appealable prior to the entry of a 
final order on Hill’s postconviction motion.3  The Court does not have 
jurisdiction to review Hill’s interlocutory appeal in this criminal case.4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
    
 
 
                                                 
2 Id. 
3 Lewis v. State, Del. Supr., No. 515, 2005, Berger, J. (Dec. 14, 2005).  Contrary to Hill’s 
belief, the Superior Court’s order did not deny him the opportunity to file a motion for 
postconviction relief in the future, but simply denied his motion for transcripts. 
4 Robinson v. State, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998).