Twyman v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TERRELL TWYMAN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Defendant Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 49, 2004 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0006003916 Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: March 9, 2004 Before HOLLAND, STEELE, and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 9th day of March 2004, it appears to the Court that: (1) On February 11, 2004, the appellant, Terrell Twyman, filed a pro se notice of appeal from a decision of the Superior Court dated January 30, 2004. In its decision, the Superior Court denied Twyman s request for a transcript. (2) On February 11, 2004, the Assistant Clerk of this Court issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court 29(b), directing Twyman to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal. (3) On February 18, 2004, Twyman filed a response to the notice to show cause. In his response, Twyman discusses his reasons why he needs a transcript and opines that the denial of a transcript is unconstitutional. Twyman does not address the issue of this Court s lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal. The Superior Court s refusal to provide a transcript is clearly an interlocutory ruling in this criminal matter.1 (4) Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a final judgment in a criminal case.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/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 1 See Robinson v. State, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998). 2 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). 3 See Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400 (Del. 1997); Rash v. State, 318 A.2d 603 (Del 1974). -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.