Samuel v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE HARRY SAMUEL, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 577, 2001 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 93005924DI Submitted: December 6, 2001 Decided: December 10, 2001 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices ORDER This 10th day of December 2001, it appears to the Court that: (1) On November 19, 2001, defendant-appellant Harry Samuel filed a pro se notice of appeal from the October 16, 2001 order of the Superior Court denying Samuel s request for transcripts at State expense. (2) On November 21, 2001, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Samuel to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed based upon this Court s lack of jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal. On December 6, 2001, Samuel filed a response to the notice to show cause. In his response, Samuel states his need for the transcripts, but does not address the issue of this Court s lack of jurisdiction. (3) The Superior Court s order denying Samuel s request for transcripts constitutes an interlocutory ruling in this criminal matter. Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a final judgment in a criminal case.1 As a result, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Superior Court s interlocutory ruling.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1) (b). 2 Rash v. State, Del. Supr., 318 A.2d 603 (1974). -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.
