Opinion
No. 56, 1999.
Submitted: February 16, 1999.
Decided: February 18, 1999.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County, in Cr. ID No. 981013999.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HARTNETT and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 18th day of February 1999, it appears to the Court that:
1. On February 16, 1999, the appellant, appearing pro se, has filed a notice of appeal from the interlocutory order of the Superior Court dated January 29, 1999, denying defense counsel's motion for a new trial. The appellant has not been sentenced yet in the Superior Court.
2. Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be reviewed by this Court in a criminal case. Del. Const. Art. IV, § 11( 1)(b). As a result, this Court has no jurisdiction to review an interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. Rash v. State, Del Supr., 318 A.2d 603, (1974); State v. Cooley, Del. Supr., 430 A.2d 789, (1981). This well-settled principle of Delaware constitutional law precludes our consideration of Harris' appeal.
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, Del. Supr., 551 A.2d 65, 66-67 (1988).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) that this appeal be, and the same hereby is,
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger, Justice