Opinion
No. 141, 2002.
Submitted: March 20, 2002.
Decided: March 28, 2002.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr. ID No. 0107006910
Appeal Dismissed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
THOMAS E. NORWOOD, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 141, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: March 28, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
JOSEPH T. WALSH, Justice:
ORDER
This 28TH day of March 2002, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On March 20, 2002, the defendant, Thomas E. Norwood, filed a pro se notice of appeal, attempting to appeal a sentence that has not yet been imposed. The defendant's sentencing is currently scheduled for April 26, 2002.
(2) This Court's appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases is limited to appeals from final judgments. A criminal conviction is not a final, appealable judgment until the defendant has been sentenced. The defendant's appeal in this case manifestly fails to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. 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.
DEL. CONST. ART. IV, § 11( 1)(b); Grossberg v. State, Del. Supr., No. 307, 1997, Veasey, C.J. (July 25, 1997).
See Perry v. State, 575 A.2d 1154, 1155 (Del.Supr. 1990).
In the Matter of Haskins, 551 A.2d 65, 66 (Del.Supr. 1988).
(3) The Court has concluded, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(c), that the appeal, on its face, manifestly fails to invoke this Court's jurisdiction and that, in the exercise of the Court's discretion, the giving of notice of dismissal would serve no meaningful purpose and that any response thereto would be of no avail.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 6 and 29(c), that the within appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte.