Waples v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAVAGHN WAPLES, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 367, 2020 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 1812013462B (S) Submitted: November 30, 2020 Decided: January 6, 2021 Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGMERY-REEVES Justices. ORDER After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to the Court that: (1) On November 2, 2020, the appellant, Javaghn Waples, filed a notice of appeal from his January 28, 2020 conviction for possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. As Waples acknowledged in his notice of appeal and as reflected on the docket, the Superior Court has not yet sentenced Waples. The Superior Court docket reflects that, on April 3, 2020, the Superior Court granted defense counsel’s request to continue sentencing until Waples could appear in open court.1 The docket also 1 For most of the judicial emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial courts have not held in-person hearings with incarcerated defendants. reflects that the Superior Court recently granted the motion to withdraw filed by defense counsel. Waples has filed a motion for appointment of counsel that is currently pending. The Superior Court docket does not reflect that Waples’ former counsel or Waples have requested sentencing by video. (2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Waples to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed based on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction under Article IV, § 11(1)(b) of the Delaware Constitution to hear an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter. In his response to the notice to show cause, Waples addresses his inability to obtain the materials he needs for his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but does not address the interlocutory nature of his appeal. (3) Under the Delaware Constitution, the Court may review only a final judgment in a criminal case.2 Because Waples has not yet been sentenced for his criminal conviction, this appeal is interlocutory and the Court has no jurisdiction to consider it.3 After the Superior Court sentences Waples, he may file an appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice 2 3 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). Cirwithian v. State, 2019 WL 7041892, at *1 (Del. Dec. 20, 2019). 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.
