Title: Carter v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 451, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 19, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JERMAINE CARTER, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 451, 2023 
§   
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos.  0401017107 (N) 
§                       0711001490 (N)                  
§                       1605016488 (N) 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 14, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 19, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In November 2023, the appellant, Jermaine Carter, filed in the Superior 
Court a “Motion to Compel Rule 16 Discovery” in Criminal Case No. 0401017107, 
Criminal Case No. 0711001490, and Criminal Case No. 1605016488.  In his motion, 
Carter stated that he needed discovery to challenge his convictions in these three 
cases.  The Superior Court denied the motion, noting that there were no pending 
motions in any of the three cases.  This appeal followed. 
(2) 
On December 6, 2023, the Senior Court Clerk sent a notice to Carter 
directing him to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s 
2 
 
lack of jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter.  Carter has 
responded to the notice to show cause and claims that the Superior Court’s order was 
final.  Carter is incorrect. 
(3) 
Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be 
reviewed by the Court in a criminal case.1  The Superior Court’s order denying 
Carter’s motion to compel the production of documents—presumably made in 
anticipation of filing a motion for postconviction relief—is an interlocutory order.  
If Carter is unsuccessful on the merits of any such motion, he may then appeal to 
this Court for a review of that final judgment as well as any interlocutory rulings of 
the Superior Court.  At this time, however, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider 
Carter’s interlocutory appeal.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).