Opinion ID: 3218504
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This Appeal is Properly Before this Court Under

Text: the Collateral Order Doctrine Before discussing the DOC’s arguments, this Court must address McCoy’s contention that we should dismiss this appeal because it is an improper interlocutory appeal in a criminal case that is is outside the scope of the collateral order doctrine. We find that the appeal is within the scope of the collateral order doctrine and reject McCoy’s contention. McCoy is correct that this Court cannot hear interlocutory appeals in most criminal cases.23 But, under the collateral order doctrine, we may hear such appeals if three conditions are met.24 “In Gannett, this Court described the attributes of a 23 Gannett Co. v. State, 565 A.2d 895, 899 (Del. 1989). 24 Evans v. Justice of the Peace Ct. No. 19, 652 A.2d 574, 576 (Del. 1995). 10 collateral order comprising a final judgment: first, it determines a matter independent of the issues to be resolved in the original underlying proceeding; second, it binds a person who was not a party in the original underlying proceeding; and, third, it has a substantial effect on important rights.”25 Applying this standard, the Superior Court’s August 28 order was a collateral order this Court may review. First, a decision by this Court will determine matters independent from the issues to be resolved in McCoy’s criminal case. The issue to be decided at trial is whether McCoy is guilty of murder and other charges. The issues involved in that determination are wholly unrelated to the question that this decision will answer, which is whether the Superior Court has the authority to order an inmate transferred from one housing unit to another in a criminal case. Second, this decision will bind a party that is not a party in McCoy’s criminal case. Specifically, the DOC is not a party in McCoy’s criminal case, but is directly involved in this appeal. McCoy’s assertion that “the State of Delaware is a party in both the underlying proceeding and in this appeal” oversimplifies the relationship between the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the DOC, which are distinct state 25 Id. at 577 (citing Gannett Co., 565 A.2d at 900). 11 agencies.26 Although the DOJ is involved in the criminal case because its attorneys are prosecuting McCoy, the DOC will play no role in that prosecution. Finally, this Court’s decision will have a substantial effect on important rights. The Superior Court concluded that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel empowered it to override a DOC housing classification and order a detainee transferred to a lower level of security in a criminal case. We conclude in this appeal that it does not.