Opinion ID: 1472650
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Intermediate Review Required

Text: In other contexts, this Court has held that our appellate jurisdiction is limited to reviewing orders entered by judges of a trial court, not orders entered by masters [16] or commissioners. [17] In Carr v. State, [18] on procedural facts similar to Johnson's case, this Court dismissed an appeal from a Superior Court Commissioner's VOP sentencing order as interlocutory. In Carr, we assumed, without analysis, that the Commissioner's sentencing order fell within the category of case-dispositive orders that are subject to de novo review by a Superior Court judge under Superior Court Criminal Rule 62(a)(5) and section 512(b). [19] We adhere to our holding in Carr. Section 512 is patterned on the Federal Magistrates Act. [20] In the federal court system, defendants who properly consent to a magistrate judge's jurisdiction over their criminal proceedings are required to appeal to the federal district court in the first instance. [21] Federal courts of appeal are without jurisdiction to review a direct appeal from a misdemeanor conviction and sentence entered by a magistrate judge. [22] The federal district court is the only forum in which a defendant can seek review of a United States magistrate judge's decision. [23] Similarly, the Superior Court is the only forum in which a defendant can seek review of a Commissioner's decision. In the absence of that intermediate review by a Superior Court judge, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from any action taken by a Commissioner. [24] The Superior Court must amend Criminal Rule 62 to provide for that right of de novo intermediate review by a Superior Court judge in the first instance. [25]