Anderson v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LLOYD ANDERSON, No. 394, 2000 Defendant Below, Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court in the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County ID No. 9612001997 v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Submitted: August 28, 2000 Decided: September 5, 2000 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices. ORDER th This 5 day of September 2000, it appears to the Court that: 1. On August 14, 2000, the appellant, appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court dated August 7, 2000, which denied his Motion for Transcript of Record. On August 16, 2000, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court 29(b), directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal. 2. On August 28, 2000, the appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause. In his response, the appellant requests this Court to invoke its jurisdiction and grant his request for transcript to file future postconviction relief motions. 3. Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be reviewed by this Court in a criminal case. It is beyond dispute that this Court lacks jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. Del Const., art. IV, ' 11(1)(b); State v. Cooley, Del. Supr., 430 A.2d 789, (1981). The order of the Superior Court denying the appellant's motion for transcript of record is an interlocutory order and not a final criminal judgment. Briggs v. State, Del. Supr., No. 453, 1993, Moore, J. (Feb. 4, 1994) (ORDER). Therefore, the appellant's notice of appeal fails to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Id. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 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.