Gladden v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOSHUA GLADDEN, §
§ No. 222,2020
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. I.D. No. 1711001035 (K)
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: July 20, 2020
Decided: July 31, 2020
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,
Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,
it appears to the Court that:
(1) On July 6, 2020, the appellant, Joshua Gladden, filed a notice of appeal
from two Superior Court orders related to his pending motion for postconviction
relief: the court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and the
court’s order denying his motion for transcripts. The Senior Court Clerk issued a
notice directing Gladden to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed
because this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.
(2) Gladden filed a response to the notice to show cause on July 20, 2020.
Gladden’s response asserts that he is entitled to the appointment of counsel and the
transcripts of proceedings below; however, it does not address the jurisdictional
issue raised in the notice to show cause.
(3) It is clear from Gladden’s notice of appeal, his response to the notice to
show cause, and the relevant documents from the Superior Court record that the
Superior Court’s May 22, 2020 decisions were interlocutory orders. This Court has
no jurisdiction to review interlocutory rulings in criminal cases.1 The Superior
Court’s order denying Gladden’s motion for appointment of counsel is not
appealable as a collateral order before the entry of a final order on his motion for
postconviction relief.2 The Superior Court’s order denying Gladden’s motion for
transcripts is also not appealable as a collateral order before the entry of a final order
on his motion for postconviction relief. 3
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
1
Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b); Gannett Co., Inc. v. State, 565 A.2d 895, 899 (Del. 1989).
2
Harris v. State, 2013 WL 4858990, at *1 (Del. Sept. 10, 2013).
3
Womer v. State, 1991 WL 316971, at *1 (Del. Dec. 30, 1991).