Owens v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE USHANGO OWENS, Petitioner BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondent BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 51, 2008 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 07M-04-020 Submitted: February 7, 2008 Decided: February 14, 2008 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices ORDER This 14th day of February 2008, it appears to the Court that: (1) On January 29, 2008, the appellant, Ushango Owens, filed a notice of appeal from a Superior Court commissioner s order dated January 16, 2008. The order dismissed Owens petition for return of $663.00 in connection with the charge of Resisting Arrest in Superior Court Criminal I.D. Number 0702007817. (2) On January 29, 2008, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice directed to Owens to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) for this Court s lack of jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order of a Superior Court commissioner.1 (3) On February 7, 2008, the Court received a document from Owens, which we deem to be his response to the notice to show cause. In the document, Owens appears to argue that this Court has the authority to assume jurisdiction over his appeal. (4) This Court does not have the authority to hear an appeal directly from an order of a Superior Court commissioner without intermediate review of that order by a Superior Court judge.2 In order to obtain intermediate review of the commissioner s order, Owens must follow the procedures outlined in Superior Court Civil Rule 132. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(a); Johnson v. State, 884 A.2d 475, 479 (Del. 2005). Floyd v. State, Del. Supr., No. 516, 2006, Ridgely, J. (Apr. 25, 2007); Johnson v. Williams, Del. Supr., No. 413, 2005, Steele, C.J. (Jan. 24, 2006). 2 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.