Hall v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MURRAY HALL, III, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 397, 2022
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 2102000900 (K)
§
Appellee. §
Submitted: November 3, 2022
Decided: November 21, 2022
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears
to the Court that:
(1) On October 6, 2022, the appellant, Murray Hall, III, filed this appeal
from a Superior Court Commissioner’s order denying his motion for appointment of
counsel. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Hall to show cause why
this appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider
an appeal directly from a Superior Court Commissioner’s order. In his response to
the notice to show cause, Hall argues the substantive merits of his motion for
appointment of counsel and does not address the jurisdictional defect.
(2) In the absence of intermediate review by a Superior Court judge, this
Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from a Superior Court
Commissioner’s order.1 Once the Superior Court resolves Hall’s pending motion
for postconviction relief, Hall may argue on appeal that the Superior Court
Commissioner erred in denying his motion for appointment of counsel. 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/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice
1
Johnson v. State, 884 A.2d 475, 479 (Del. 2005). Even if a Superior Court judge had reviewed
the Commissioner’s decision denying the motion for appointment of counsel, this Court also lacks
jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter. Del. Const. Art. IV, § 11(1)(b).
2