Opinion
No. 553, 2000.
January 16, 2001.
Appeal from Superior Court, Kent County, CrA IK97-10-0513 through -0518.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
ROBERT E. EATON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 553, 2000, Def. ID No. 9710000083. Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: January 3, 2001. Decided: January 16, 2001.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County, Cr.A. Nos. IK97-10-0513 through -0518.
Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 16th day of January 2001, it appears to the Court that:
1. On November 27, 2000, the appellant, Robert E. Eaton, filed a pro se notice of appeal from a decision of the Superior Court dated November 8, 2000.
In its decision, the Superior Court denied Eaton's request for counsel because no application for postconviction relief had been filed and no grounds for appointment of counsel had been shown. The Superior Court docket reflects that Eaton subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief in compliance with Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. That motion remains pending before the Superior Court.
2. On November 27, 2000, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court 29(b), directing Eaton to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal. On January 3, 2001, Eaton filed a response to the notice to show cause. Eaton's response does not address the issue of this Court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.
3. The Superior Court's refusal to appoint counsel for Eaton is clearly an interlocutory ruling in this criminal matter. Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a final judgment in a criminal case. As a result, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Superior Court's interlocutory ruling in this case.
See Robinson v. State, Del. Supr., 704 A.2d 269, 271 (1998).
Del. Const. art. IV, § 11( 1)(b).
See Gottlieb v. State, Del. Supr., 697 A.2d 400 (1997); Rash v. State, Del Supr., 318 A.2d 603 (1974).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland Justice