Buchanan v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DAVID J. BUCHANAN, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 531, 2008 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County Cr. ID No. 0801031784 Submitted: October 31, 2008 Decided: November 10, 2008 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices ORDER This 10th day of November 2008, it appears to the Court that: (1) On October 23, 2008, the Court received the appellant s notice of appeal from the Superior Court s October 7, 2008 letter and order striking his pro se motion for postconviction relief and request for transcript and advising the appellant that any future request for relief would be docketed only if it was submitted by the appellant s appointed counsel.1 1 In re Haskins, 551 A.2d 65, 66-67 (Del. 1988) (A criminal defendant does not have the right to hybrid representation---that is, if counsel has been appointed for him and the court has not granted him the opportunity to participate in his own representation, only counsel is permitted to act on his behalf). (2) On October 23, 2008, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed based upon the Court s lack of jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter.2 The appellant submitted his response to the notice to show cause on October 31, 2008. In his response, the appellant argues that the appeal should not be dismissed because the Superior Court s order is a final order and, furthermore, his appeal has merit. (3) Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be reviewed by this Court in a criminal case.3 The order of the Superior Court striking the appellant s motion for postconviction relief and request for transcript is an interlocutory order and not a final criminal judgment.4 As such, the appellant s notice of appeal fails to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, must be dismissed.5 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 2 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1) (b). Id.; State v. Cooley, 430 A.2d 789, 791 (Del. 1981). 4 Anderson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 394, 2000, Holland, J. (Sept. 5, 2000). 5 State v. Cooley, 430 A.2d at 791. 3 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.
