Title: Garrison v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 413, 2020
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 1, 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
REBECCA GARRISON,1 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§       No. 413, 2020 
§ 
§       Court Below—Superior Court 
§       of the State of Delaware 
§   
§       File No. K20I-02-259 
§  
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: December 23, 2020 
Decided: 
February 1, 2021 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant is the respondent in a civil commitment proceeding in the 
Superior Court; the Superior Court appointed counsel to represent the appellant in 
that proceeding.  The appellant filed this pro se appeal from a decision of the 
Superior Court, dated November 24, 2020, which denied a motion for a transcript 
 
1 The Court has assigned a pseudonym to the appellant. 
 
2 
and an application to proceed in forma pauperis.  The appellant also filed a motion 
for appointment of counsel in this appeal. 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to the appellant to show cause 
why the appeal should not be dismissed for the appellant’s failure to comply with 
Supreme Court Rule 42 when appealing an apparent interlocutory order.  In 
response, the appellant states that she is unsatisfied with the efforts of appointed 
counsel and that, as a nonlawyer, she is unfamiliar with the appellate process.  Along 
with the response, she also submitted a notice of appeal from interlocutory order 
from the November 24, 2020 order. 
(3) 
We conclude that this appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory. 
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42—which requires an application to 
the trial court to certify the interlocutory appeal, among other requirements—the 
appellate jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders.2  A 
decision by a trial court denying a request for transcripts or denying a request to 
proceed in forma pauperis is interlocutory—that is, not final—in nature.3   The 
appeal therefore must be dismissed. 
 
2 Hines v. Williams, 2018 WL 2435551 (Del. May 29, 2018); Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 
(Del. 1982). 
3 See Small v. State, 2015 WL 8013261 (Del. Dec. 4, 2015) (stating that a trial court order denying 
transcripts is interlocutory in nature); In re Petition for Writ of Mandamus by Claudio, 2001 WL 
117986 (Del. Jan. 30, 2001) (same).  See also Brown v. Carroll, 2005 WL 2179389 (Del. Sept. 7, 
2005) (“It is well-established that the trial court’s denial of in forma pauperis status is an 
interlocutory ruling that is subject to the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42.”).  
 
3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby 
DISMISSED.  The motion for appointment of counsel is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice