Morris v. State ( 2021 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ALONZO MORRIS, §
§ No. 320, 2021
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below–Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID No. 1206005058 (N)
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: November 1, 2021
Decided: November 4, 2021
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,
Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s
responses, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On October 12, 2021, the appellant, Alonzo Morris, filed a notice of
appeal from two Superior Court orders—dated September 20, 2021, and October 5,
2021—denying his motions for transcripts at State expense. The Senior Court Clerk
issued a notice directing Morris to show cause why this appeal should not be
dismissed based on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal
in a criminal matter. In his responses to the notice to show cause, Morris asserts that
he needs the guilty plea colloquy transcript in order to pursue relief in the Superior
Court. Morris also claims that the Superior Court mischaracterized his motions as
requesting transcripts at State expense because Morris has made his own financial
arrangements to pay for the transcripts. We note that Morris need not move to obtain
transcripts if he intends to pay for their preparation. He may, as he represents that
he has done, simply make payment arrangements with the court reporter’s office to
obtain the transcripts that he desires. The Superior Court’s orders denying Morris’s
motions for transcripts at State expense did not affect Morris’s ability to
independently pay for and obtain transcripts.
(2) In any event, the Superior Court’s September 20, 2021 and October 5,
2021 orders denying Morris’s motions for transcripts are not subject to review at this
time because they are interlocutory orders.1 Under the Delaware Constitution, only
a final judgment may be reviewed by the Court in a criminal case.2 “An order
constitutes a final judgment where it leaves nothing for future determination or
consideration.”3 The motions for transcripts reflect that Morris seeks the transcripts
to supplement a motion for collateral review and a petition for an extraordinary writ.
The Superior Court docket reflects that, to date, no motions or petitions are pending
in Morris’s case. To the extent that Morris seeks transcripts at State expense in
connection with the future filing of a motion for collateral review or a petition for
1
Davis v. State, 2014 WL 4243634, at *1 (Del. Aug. 26, 2014).
2
Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).
3
Robinson v. State, 704 A.2d 269, 271 (Del. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2
an extraordinary writ, if Morris is unsuccessful on the merits of such a motion or
petition, he may then appeal to this Court for a review of that final judgment as well
as the interlocutory ruling relating to the denial of a request for transcript at State
expense.4 At this point in time, however, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider
Morris’s interlocutory appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves
Justice
4
Christopher v. State, 2009 WL 2841191, at *1 (Del. Sept. 4, 2009).
3