Price v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LOU G. PRICE, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 407, 2013 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0106010693 Submitted: August 8, 2013 Decided: August 23, 2013 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 23rd day of August 2013, it appears to the Court that: (1) On July 29, 2013, the Court received the appellant s notice of appeal from the Superior Court s July 18, 2013 order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel on his second motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. On August 1, 2013, 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 on the Court s lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.1 1 DEL. CONST. art. IV, §11(1)(b); State v. Cooley, 430 A.2d 789, 791 (Del. 1981). (2) The appellant filed his response to the notice to show cause on August 8, 2013. The appellant states that he has a right to counsel to assist him in prosecuting his second motion for postconviction relief because he did not have the assistance of counsel on his first motion for postconviction relief. (3) This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal,2 such as the instant appeal from the Superior Court s denial of a motion for the appointment of counsel on a motion for postconviction relief.3 Therefore, the instant appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. The appellant s August 5, 2013 motion for the appointment of counsel in his appeal is also denied as moot. The State s motion to dismiss, filed on August 8, 2013, is also denied as moot. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 2 Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400, 401 (Del. 1997). 3 Bednash v. State, 61 A.3d 617 (Del. 2013). 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.