Desmond v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHRISTOPHER R. DESMOND, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 413, 2010 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 91009844DI Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: September 21, 2010 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 21st day of September 2010, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief, the State s motion to dismiss, and the appellant s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Christopher R. Desmond, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s June 25, 2010 order denying his motion for recusal. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed. (2) In 1992, Desmond was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of 10 counts of Robbery in the First Degree and related offenses. He was sentenced to 70 years of Level V incarceration. This Court affirmed Desmond s convictions on direct appeal.1 Since that time, Desmond has filed 6 motions for postconviction relief, all of which the Superior Court has denied. This Court has affirmed all of the Superior Court s decisions, most recently in Desmond v. State, Del. Supr., No. 429, 2006, Steele, C.J. (Oct. 11, 2007). (3) In May 2010, Desmond filed a motion in the Superior Court requesting the trial judge who has presided over his case since his 1992 trial to recuse himself from ruling on any motions Desmond might file in the future. By order dated June 25, 2010, the Superior Court denied the motion. On this latest appeal, Desmond asks this Court to vacate the trial judge s denial of his most recent motion for postconviction relief as well as his denial of the motion for recusal. (4) Under Article IV, §11(1)(b) of the Delaware Constitution, this Court may review only a final judgment in a criminal case. The denial of a motion for recusal of a judge is not a final, appealable order.2 Therefore, Desmond s appeal from the Superior Court s interlocutory order denying his motion for recusal must be dismissed.3 1 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821 (Del. 1994). Webb v. State, Del. Supr., No. 49, 2002, Veasey, C.J. (Feb. 27, 2002) (citing Robinson v. State, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998)). 3 Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 2 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs 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.
