Title: State v. Hardy
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 522, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 29, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Petitioner Below-
Appellant,
v.
CALVIN HARDY,
Respondent Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 522, 2001
§
§  Court Below—Family Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Sussex County
§  Nos. 0004005099 and
§  0103017446
§
§
Submitted: November 5, 2001
  Decided:
November 29, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 29th day of November 2001, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The State of Delaware filed a notice of appeal in this case from a
bench ruling made by the Family Court at a hearing held on September 25,
2001.  At the conclusion of the hearing on Calvin Hardy’s pretrial motion to
dismiss, the Family Court indicated that it agreed with Hardy’s position and
would dismiss the case on constitutional grounds.  The Family Court further
stated, however, that it wanted the parties to file written briefs in support of
their respective arguments and that thereafter the court would issue a written
decision.  The State instead filed a notice of appeal.
2
(2)
This Court directed the State to show cause why the appeal
should not be dismissed as an impermissible interlocutory appeal.  Upon
consideration of the State’s response to the notice to show cause, it is manifest
that this appeal is interlocutory.  The record reflects that the Family Court's
bench ruling, among other things, requested the parties below to submit
written briefs in support of their respective oral arguments on the motion to
dismiss.  The Family Court indicated that it would further consider the motion
to dismiss and write an opinion in support of its decision.
(3)
The further action required by the Family Court in this matter did
not involve a purely ministerial act but an exercise of discretion by the Family
Court in fashioning an appropriate order.  The bench ruling is interlocutory in
nature because it did not finally determine and terminate the cause before the
Family Court.  See Julian v. State, Del. Supr., 440 A.2d 990 (1982); Lipson v.
Lipson, Del. Supr., 2001 WL 710201, *2 (June 21, 2001).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s appeal from the
Family Court’s interlocutory ruling is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice