Brittingham v. State
This text of Brittingham v. State (Brittingham v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MALACHI BRITTINGHAM, § § Defendant Below, § No. 127, 2020 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID Nos. 1901009608, § 1902011833, 1902017523 (N) Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §
Submitted: April 30, 2020 Decided: May 4, 2020
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
Having considered the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to the
Court that:
(1) On March 27, 2020, the appellant, Malachi Brittingham, filed a notice
of appeal from a Superior Court order refusing to consider his pro se motion to
dismiss pending criminal charges because he was represented by counsel.1 The
Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Brittingham to show cause why this
appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider a
1 Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 47, the Superior Court “will not consider pro se applications by defendants who are represented by counsel unless the defendant has been granted permission to participate with counsel in the defense.” criminal interlocutory appeal. In his response to the notice to show cause,
Brittingham argues that review of his interlocutory appeal would serve a beneficial
purpose.
(2) This Court may only review a final judgment in a criminal case.2 The
Superior Court order refusing to consider Brittingham’s pro se motion to dismiss is
not a final order.3 This appeal must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice
2 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). See also Gottlieb v. State, 697 A.2d 400, 401 (Del. 1997) (holding this Court lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in criminal cases). 3 Cf. Brunhammer v. State, 2016 WL 611822, at *1 (Del. Feb. 12, 2016) (dismissing appeal from Superior Court order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment). 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Brittingham v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brittingham-v-state-del-2020.