Title: Brooks v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 234, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 9, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ALAN T.  BROOKS,
§
§
No.  234, 2001
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§  Court BelowSuperior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
v.
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A.  Nos.  IN86-04-0490 - 0492,
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§    0494; IN86-03-1329 - 1332.
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§  Def.  ID NO.  86002026DI
Submitted: June 27, 2001
Decided:
July 9, 2001
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 9th day of July 2001, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On May 16, 2001, the appellant, Alan T.  Brooks, filed a pro se
notice of appeal from a decision of the Superior Court dated May 2, 2001.
  In its May 2 decision, the Superior Court denied Brooks’ April 2 letter in
which he requested transcript at State expense so that he could draft a motion
for postconviction relief.  The Superior Court also advised Brooks that the
proper recourse for requesting free transcript for drafting a post-trial motion
is to file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court
Criminal Rule (“Rule 61") which demonstrates actual need for the transcript.
2
(2)
On May 16, 2001, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice,
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Brooks to show cause why
this appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to
entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.  On June 27, 2001, Brooks filed a
response to the notice to show cause.  In his response, Brooks contends that
the Superior Court’s May 2 order is final because it denied postconviction
relief as well as his request for transcript. 
(3)
Brooks is correct that the Superior Court’s May 2 order applies
the procedural bars of Rule 61 to his April 2 letter request for transcript.  The
order does not, however, deny a motion for postconviction relief.  The order
denies Brooks’ letter request for transcript. 
(4)
This Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Superior
Court’s interlocutory ruling in this case.  Under the Delaware Constitution,
this Court may review only a final judgment in a criminal case.1  The order
of the Superior Court denying Brooks’ request for transcript is “not
                                                 
1Del.  Const.  art.  IV, § 11(1)(b).
3
appealable as a collateral order before the entry of a final order on a
postconviction motion.”2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                                 
2Mundy v.  State, Del.  Supr., No.  347, 1999, Berger, J., 1999 WL 636615 (Aug.
5, 1999) (ORDER) (emphasis in original).