Correa v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE GUANGO CORREA, § § § § § § § § § § § Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Defendant Below, Appellee. No. 430, 2003 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County Cr. ID No. 0205013182 Cr. A. No. IK02-05-0782R1 Submitted: September 5, 2003 Decided: September 26, 2003 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 26th day of September 2003, it appears to the Court that: 1. On August 29, 2003, the appellant, Guango Correa, filed a pro se notice of appeal from a decision of a Superior Court Commissioner, dated August 13, 2003, which denied Correa s motion for postconviction relief. 2. On August 29, 2003, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court 29(b), directing Correa to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal. On September 5, 2003, Correa filed a response to the notice to show cause. In that response, Correa 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 As a result, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Superior Court s interlocutory ruling in this case.2 4. The Supreme Court s appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals from decisions of judges of a court. 3 Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 sets forth procedures for obtaining review of a Commissioner s order by a Superior Court judge. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 1 DEL. CONST . art. IV, § 11(1)(b). 2 See Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400 (Del. 1997); Rash v. State, 318 A.2d 603 (Del. 1974). 3 Redden v. McGill, 549 A.2d 695 (Del. 1988); Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 512. -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.