Lewis v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JIMMIE LEWIS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 515, 2005 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0305016966 Submitted: November 2, 2005 Decided: December 14, 2005 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices ORDER This 14th day of December 2005, it appears to the Court that: (1) On October 21, 2005, the defendant-appellant, Jimmie Lewis, filed a pro se notice of appeal from the Superior Court s October 5, 2005 order denying his Motion to Impugn the Authenticity of Trial Transcript and Sentencing Transcript. 1 In the motion, Lewis questioned the Lewis direct appeal previously was filed in this Court as No. 64, 2005. This Court affirmed Lewis convictions and sentences in Lewis v. State, Del. Supr., No. 64, Berger, J. (Sept. 29, 2005). The instant motion was filed in the Superior Court after that Order was issued. 1 authenticity of the transcripts of his trial and sentencing and requested that authentic versions of those transcripts be provided to him.2 (2) On October 21, 2005, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Lewis to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed based upon this Court s lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal. On November 2, 2005, Lewis filed a response to the notice to show cause. In his response, Lewis does not address the issue of this Court s lack of jurisdiction. Lewis argues, among other things, that he needs the authentic transcripts in order to file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. (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 denying Lewis motion for transcripts is not appealable prior to the entry of a final order on Lewis postconviction motion.4 The Court does not have jurisdiction to review Lewis interlocutory appeal in this criminal case.5 The record reflects that Lewis counsel provided him with the complete trial transcript in connection with the direct appeal. 3 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1) (b). 4 Brooks v. State, Del. Supr., No. 234, 2001, Holland, J. (July 9, 2001) (citing Mundy v. State, Del. Supr., No. 347, 1999, Berger, J. (Aug. 5, 1999). 5 Robinson v. State, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998); Rash v. State, 318 A.2d 603 (Del. 1974). 2 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), this appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 3
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.
