Daniels v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ELMER DANIELS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 541, 2009 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 87002394DI Submitted: September 25, 2009 Decided: October 20, 2009 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 20th day of October 2009, it appears to the Court that: (1) In 1980, a Superior Court jury convicted the appellant, Elmer Daniels, of Rape in the First Degree. Daniels was sentenced to life imprisonment. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Daniels conviction and sentence.1 Thereafter, Daniels filed unsuccessful petitions for federal habeas corpus relief and state postconviction relief.2 (2) On September 15, 2009, Daniels filed a notice of appeal from the Superior Court s orders of September 2, 2009 that denied his motion for appointment of counsel and motion for discovery. On September 15, 2009, 1 Daniels v. State, 445 A.2d 335 (Table) (Del. 1981). See Daniels v. State, 1997 WL 597126 (Del. Supr.) (affirming denial of second motion for postconviction relief). By order dated January 3, 2005, the Superior Court denied Daniels fifth motion for postconviction relief. State v. Daniels, 2005 WL 148768 (Del. Super.). 2 the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing that Daniels show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed based upon this Court s lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal. (3) On September 25, 2009, Daniels filed a response to the notice to show cause. In his response, Daniels contends that his motions for appointment of counsel and for discovery relate to a Superior Court final order issued on March 17, 1980 over which this Court has continuing subject matter jurisdiction. (4) Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be reviewed by this Court in a criminal case.3 This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order in a criminal case.4 In this case, the orders of the Superior Court denying Daniels motions are interlocutory orders and are not final criminal judgments.5 Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Daniels appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 3 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b); State v. Cooley, 430 A.2d 789, 791 (Del. 1981). Id. 5 In re Shockley, 2005 WL 2475731 (Del. Supr.) (citing Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400, 401-02 (Del. 1997)). 4 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.
