Opinion
No. 325, 2002
Submitted: June 7, 2002
Decided: June 21, 2002
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0202001125
Appeal Dismissed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
ARTHUR J. BAKER, § Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 325, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: June 7, 2002 Decided: June 21, 2002Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. ORDER
This 21st day of June 2002, it appears to the Court that:
1. On June 7, 2002, the appellant, Arthur J. Baker, appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal from an order of the Superior Court dated May 30, 2002. The Superior Court order denied Baker's Motion to Suppress, which was filed by Baker's attorney.
2. Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be reviewed by this Court in a criminal case. The denial of a Motion to Suppress filed in the Superior Court is not a final appealable order, nor is it appealable as a collateral order before the entry of a final sentencing order in the case. As a result, this Court has no jurisdiction to review Baker's interlocutory appeal in this criminal case.
Del Const. Art. IV, § 11( 1)(b).
Rash v. State, 318 A.2d 603 (Del. 1974); State v. Cooley, 430 A.2d 789 (Del. 1981).
3. Furthermore, a defendant represented by counsel may not act pro se. Counsel is the only person who is authorized to act on behalf of the defendant.
In the Matter of Haskins, 551 A.2d 65, 66-67 (Del. 1988).
4. The Court concludes, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(c), that the within criminal interlocutory appeal, on its face, manifestly fails to invoke the Court's jurisdiction, and that the giving of notice of said defect would serve no meaningful purpose and that any response would be of no avail.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED,
sua sponte, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(c).