IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DANIEL PASKINS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Defendant Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 349, 2002 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County Cr. ID No. 9312006327
Submitted: July 10, 2002 Decided: July 23, 2002 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 23rd day of July 2002, it appears to the Court that: 1. On June 20, 2002, the appellant, Daniel Paskins, filed a pro se notice of
appeal from a decision of the Superior Court dated June 12, 2002. In its decision, the Superior Court denied Paskins’ motion for recusal filed on June 2, 2002. On July 2, 2002, the Assistant Clerk of this Court issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court 29(b), directing Paskins 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 July 10, 2002, Paskins filed a response to the notice to show cause.
In that response, Paskins argues the merits of his motion for recusal filed in Superior
Court. He does not address the issue of this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal. 3. Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a final
judgment in a criminal case.1 The Superior Court’s denial of a motion for recusal is clearly an interlocutory ruling in this criminal matter.2 As a result, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Superior Court’s interlocutory ruling in this case.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey Chief Justice
1 2 3
DEL. CONST. ART. IV, § 11(1)(b). See Robinson v. State, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998). See Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400 (Del. 1997); Rash v. State, 318 A.2d 603 (Del. 1974).