Eaton v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ROBERT E. EATON, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' No. 449, 2000 Court BelowCSuperior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County Cr.A. Nos. IK97-10-0513 0514 0516 0517 0518 Submitted: September 20, 2000 Decided: October 10, 2000 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices ORDER This 10th day of October 2000, it appears to the Court that: (1) On September 13, 2000, the defendant-appellant, Robert E. Eaton, filed a notice of appeal in this Court from an order of the Superior Court dated August 10, 2000 denying his motions for appointment of counsel in his criminal case. (2) On September 13, 2000, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice directing Eaton to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.1 On September 20, 2000, Eaton filed a response to the notice to show cause. In his response, Eaton did not address the issue of his failure to comply with Rule 42. (3) Eaton has filed an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court=s denial of his motions for appointment of counsel in his criminal case. Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be reviewed by this Court in a criminal case.2 This Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to review Eaton=s appeal.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 1 Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 2 Del. Const. art. IV, ' 11(1) (b). 3 State v. Cooley, Del. Supr., 430 A.2d 789, 791 (1981). -2-
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.
