Title: Reid v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 129, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 26, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID C. REID, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 129, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID. 0403025083 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 4, 2005 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: April 26, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 26th day of April 2005, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 4, 2005, the defendant, David C. Reid, filed a pro se 
notice of appeal from a Superior Court jury’s guilty verdict on several 
criminal charges.  Reid’s sentencing is currently scheduled for May 24, 
2005. 
(2) 
Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a 
final judgment in a criminal case.1   Reid’s convictions in this case will not 
                                                 
1  DEL. CONST. ART. IV, § 11(1)(b); Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400, 401 (Del. 
1997). 
 
2
be final and appealable until he is sentenced.2  Thus, Reid’s appeal fails to 
invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.  Furthermore, a defendant represented 
by counsel may not act pro se.  Unless and until a defendant has made a 
proper waiver of the right to counsel, counsel is the only person authorized 
to act on defendant’s behalf.3 
(3) 
The Court has concluded, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(c), that the appeal manifestly fails to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction and 
that, in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, the giving of notice of 
dismissal would serve no meaningful purpose and that any response thereto 
would be of no avail. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rules 6 and 29(c), that the within appeal is DISMISSED sua sponte. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6(a)(ii). 
3  In re Haskins, 551 A.2d 65, 66-67 (Del. 1988).