Opinion
No. 127, 2020
05-04-2020
Malachi BRITTINGHAM, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
ORDER
Karen L. Valihura Justice
Having considered the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On March 27, 2020, the appellant, Malachi Brittingham, filed a notice of appeal from a Superior Court order refusing to consider his pro se motion to dismiss pending criminal charges because he was represented by counsel. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Brittingham to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for this Court's lack of jurisdiction to consider a criminal interlocutory appeal. In his response to the notice to show cause, Brittingham argues that review of his interlocutory appeal would serve a beneficial purpose.
Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 47, the Superior Court "will not consider pro se applications by defendants who are represented by counsel unless the defendant has been granted permission to participate with counsel in the defense."
(2) This Court may only review a final judgment in a criminal case. The Superior Court order refusing to consider Brittingham's pro se motion to dismiss is not a final order. This appeal must be dismissed.
Del. Const. art. IV, § 11 (1)(b). See also Gottlieb v. State , 697 A.2d 400, 401 (Del. 1997) (holding this Court lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in criminal cases).
Cf. Brunhammer v. State , 2016 WL 611822, at *1 (Del. Feb. 12, 2016) (dismissing appeal from Superior Court order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment).
--------
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.