Lewis v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ALFRED MAURICE LEWIS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 187, 2014 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 1311017538 Submitted: April 28, 2014 Decided: May 6, 2014 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 6th day of May 2014, it appears to the Court that: (1) On April 14, 2014, the appellant, Alfred Maurice Lewis ( Lewis ), filed a pro se notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, docketed on March 14, 2014, denying his motion for appointment of counsel. It appears from the Superior Court docket that Lewis is represented by counsel in the Superior Court. Lewis criminal trial is scheduled to begin June 5, 2014. (2) Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the Clerk issued a notice directing Lewis to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed based upon this Court s lack of jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter. In his response to the notice to show cause, Lewis argues the merit of his motion for appointment of counsel. He does not address the jurisdictional issue raised in the notice to show cause. (3) Under the Delaware Constitution only a final judgment may be reviewed by the Court in a criminal case.1 The Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order in a criminal case.2 (4) The Superior Court order denying Lewis motion for appointment of counsel is an interlocutory order. The denial of Lewis motion for appointment of counsel is not appealable as a collateral order before the entry of a final judgment. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 1 DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). 2 Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400, 401 (Del. 1997); State v. Cooley, 430 A.2d 789, 791 n.2 (Del. 1981); Rash v. State, 318 A.2d 603, 604 (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.