Hunter v. State

209 A.2d 469, 58 Del. 337, 8 Storey 337, 1965 Del. LEXIS 205
CourtSupreme Court of Delaware
DecidedApril 27, 1965
Docket79
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 209 A.2d 469 (Hunter 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.

Bluebook
Hunter v. State, 209 A.2d 469, 58 Del. 337, 8 Storey 337, 1965 Del. LEXIS 205 (Del. 1965).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a consolidated appeal from convictions for burglary upon three indicments. One indictment was tried separately and the remaining two indictments were tried together.

The appeals were docketed, briefed and argued, and when this Court came to consider the disposition of the appeals an examination of the record by the members of the Court disclosed that the defendant sought to appeal from judgments of conviction and denials of motions *338 for judgments of acquittal. It further appeared that the defendant was never sentenced upon any of the convictions. The most that appears in this respect is that on September 23, 1964 a pre-sentence investigation was ordered by the trial judge. Before any further action could be taken by the trial judge the defendant appealed.

Our jurisdiction to review proceedings in criminal cases is pursuant to Article IV, Section 11 (1) (b) of the Constitution, Del.C. which authorizes us “[t]o receive appeals from the Superior Court in criminal causes, * * * in all cases in which the sentence shall be death, ■ imprisonment exceeding one month, or fine exceeding One Hundred Dollars, * *

It is thus apparent that the jurisdiction of this court over criminal appeals results only after the imposition of a sentence pursuant to a conviction. Specifically, this Court cannot hear appeals seeking review of interlocutory judgments in criminal causes. Norman v. State ex rel. Bove, Del., 177 A. 2d 347.

Since there has been no sentence imposed upon the defendant, we are without jurisdiction to entertain his appeals. We are at a loss to know why the State did not move fur a dismissal of the appeals, but since it did not, we on our own motion will enter an order remanding the causes for sentencing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Reed v. State
Supreme Court of Delaware, 2021
Potts v. State
Supreme Court of Delaware, 2018
Morales v. State
Supreme Court of Delaware, 2014
Gottlieb v. State
697 A.2d 400 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1997)
State v. Moorhead
623 A.2d 1082 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1993)
Eller v. State
531 A.2d 948 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1987)
Rash v. State
318 A.2d 603 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1974)
State v. Roberts
282 A.2d 603 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1971)
In Re Dean
251 A.2d 347 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1969)
Gural v. State
243 A.2d 692 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
209 A.2d 469, 58 Del. 337, 8 Storey 337, 1965 Del. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-state-del-1965.