Opinion
No. 180, 1999.
June 18, 1999.
Appeal from the Superior Court, New Castle County, CrA IN95-01-0853.
APPEAL DISMISSED
Unpublished Opinion is below.
HENRY J. ANDERSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 180, 1999. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: June 7, 1999. Decided: June 18, 1999.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County in Cr. A. No. IN95- 01-0853, Def. ID No. 9501003766.
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and HARTNETT, Justices.
ORDER
This 18th day of June 1999, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In January 1998, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant, Henry J. Anderson ("Anderson"), of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Anderson's conviction.
(2) In April 1999, Anderson applied to the Superior Court for a copy of the trial transcript at State expense. According to Anderson, he needed the transcript to prepare a post-conviction motion.
(3) By order dated April 15, 1999, the Superior Court denied Anderson's request for transcript. The Superior Court stated that Anderson had not demonstrated why he needed the transcript to prepare his post-conviction motion. This appeal followed.
(4) The appellee, State of Delaware, has filed a motion to dismiss Anderson's appeal for the Court's lack of jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. Anderson has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss.
(5) Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be reviewed by this Court in a criminal case. This Court lacks jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. The Superior Court's April 15 order denying Anderson's request for transcript at State expense is an interlocutory order in a criminal case and is not a final criminal judgment. Thus, Anderson's appeal from the April 15 order does not invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
Anderson v. State, Del.Supr., No. 291, 1998, Veasey, C.J. (Mar. 18, 1999) (ORDER).
Anderson's response to the motion to dismiss was due to be filed by June 7, 1999. A response was not filed. Anderson filed his opening brief on June 1, 1999. It appears that the brief, which is dated May 20, 1999, was prepared in advance of the motion to dismiss, which is dated May 24, 1999, and is not intended to respond to the motion to dismiss. In any event, the brief does not address why Anderson's appeal should not be dismissed for this Court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.
Del. Const. art. IV, § 11( 1)(b).
State v. Cooley, Del.Supr., 430 A.2d 789 (1981).
Briggs v. State, Del.Supr., No. 453, 1993, Moore, J., 1994 WL 35487 (Feb. 4, 1994 (ORDER).
Anderson v. State, Del.Supr., No. 291, 1998, Veasey, C.J. (Mar. 18, 1999) (ORDER).
Anderson's response to the motion to dismiss was due to be filed by June 7, 1999. A response was not filed. Anderson filed his opening brief on June 1, 1999. It appears that the brief, which is dated May 20, 1999, was prepared in advance of the motion to dismiss, which is dated May 24, 1999, and is not intended to respond to the motion to dismiss. In any event, the brief does not address why Anderson's appeal should not be dismissed for this Court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.
Del. Const. art. IV, § 11( 1)(b).
State v. Cooley, Del.Supr., 430 A.2d 789 (1981).
Briggs v. State, Del.Supr., No. 453, 1993, Moore, J., 1994 WL 35487 (Feb. 4, 1994 (ORDER).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Anderson's appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice