Opinion
No. 300, 2020
10-01-2020
Edward MUJICA, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On September 10, 2020, the appellant, Edward Mujica, filed a notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated August 11, 2020, granting his motion for transcripts at State expense, but otherwise denying his motion for discovery. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Mujica to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court's lack of jurisdiction under Article IV, § 11(1)(b) of the Delaware Constitution to hear an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter. In his response to the notice to show cause, Mujica asks the Court to review his untimely appeal.
Mujica's appeal is timely.
(2) Under the Delaware Constitution, the Court may review only a final judgment in a criminal case. The Superior Court's denial of Mujica's motion for discovery is an interlocutory, not final, order. The Court does not have jurisdiction to review this appeal.
Del. Const. art. IV, § 11 (1)(b).
See, e.g., Bishop v. State , 2016 WL 3379871, at *1 (Del. June 2, 2016) (finding the denial of a motion for discovery and inspection was an interlocutory, not final, order); Daniels v. State , 2009 WL 3367072, at *1 (Del. Oct. 20, 2009) (finding the denials of motions for discovery and appointment of counsel were interlocutory).
This 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 like the denial of a motion for discovery for the postconviction motion. See, e.g., Christopher v. State , 2009 WL 2841191, at *1 (Del. Sept. 4, 2009) (dismissing appeal from order denying preparation of transcript at State expense, but noting that if the appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief showing a need for a transcript and that motion was denied, the appellant could appeal the denial of that motion).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.