Waples v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRUCE WAPLES, § § § No. 470, 2000 § § Court Below: Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § in and for Sussex County STATE OF DELAWARE, § Def. ID Nos. 9604004784, § 9706017979 Defendant Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: October 2, 2000 Decided: October 13, 2000 Defendant Below, Appellant, Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 13TH day of October 2000, it appears to the Court that: 1. On September 22, 2000, the appellant, Bruce Waples, filed a pro se notice of appeal from an order of the Superior Court dated September 7, 2000. The Superior Court s order refused to consider Waples Motion for Review of Sentence until Waples provided supporting medical documentation. The Superior Court had informed Waples on at least one prior occasion that the medical documentation was necessary before the Court could consider the merits of Waples motion. 2. On September 25, 2000, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court 29(b), directing Waples 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 October 2, 2000, Waples filed a response to the notice to show cause. Waples 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 address the merits of Waples motion for review of sentence until Waples supplies supporting medical documentation is clearly an interlocutory ruling in this criminal matter.1 The Superior Court has indicated its intent to act upon the substance of Waples motion once Waples supplies all of the necessary information. Waples response to the Rule to Show Cause does not reflect any reason why Waples is unable to supply the information requested by the Superior Court. 4. Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a final judgment in a criminal case.2 As a result, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Superior Court s interlocutory ruling in this case.3 If Waples supplies the requested information and the Superior Court denies Waples motion on its merits, then Waples may file an appeal with this Court from that final ruling. 1 See Robinson v. State, Del. Supr., 704 A.2d 269, 271 (1998). Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). 3 See Gottlieb v. State, Del. Supr., 697 A.2d 400 (1997); Rash v. State, Del Supr., 318 A.2d 603 (1974). 2 -2- NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Justice -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
