Opinion
257 2023
08-08-2023
JEREMY BENSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee.
Submitted: August 4, 2023
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. I.D. No. 1712014868 (N)
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and GRIFFITHS, Justices.
ORDER
N. Christopher Griffiths, Justice.
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Jeremy Benson, filed a notice of appeal from an order that the Superior Court entered on June 28, 2023, establishing a schedule for the remaining briefing on Benson's motion for postconviction relief. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Benson to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed based on the Court's lack of jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter. In response to the notice to show cause, Benson argues that the Superior Court erred by extending the schedule for the postconviction briefing rather than granting Benson's motion for a default judgment.
(2) Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a final judgment in a criminal case. The Superior Court's scheduling order is an interlocutory, not final, order. The Court therefore does not have jurisdiction to review this appeal.
DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 11(1)(b); Mujica v. State, 2020 WL 5870109 (Del. Oct. 1, 2020).
See Mujica, 2020 WL 5870109, at *1 n.4 (dismissing appeal from interlocutory order in a criminal matter, but noting that the Court "would have jurisdiction of a timely appeal from a final order denying a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, which could include interlocutory rulings" in the postconviction proceedings).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.