Full Opinion (html_with_citations)

         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

  JERMAINE CARTER,                      §
                                        § No. 451, 2023
        Defendant Below,                §
        Appellant,                      § Court Below–Superior Court
                                        § of the State of Delaware
        v.                              §
                                        § Cr. ID Nos. 0401017107 (N)
  STATE OF DELAWARE,                    §               0711001490 (N)
                                        §               1605016488 (N)
        Appellee.                       §

                           Submitted: December 14, 2023
                           Decided:   December 19, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

                                     ORDER

      After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,

it appears to the Court that:

      (1)    In November 2023, the appellant, Jermaine Carter, filed in the Superior

Court a “Motion to Compel Rule 16 Discovery” in Criminal Case No. 0401017107,

Criminal Case No. 0711001490, and Criminal Case No. 1605016488. In his motion,

Carter stated that he needed discovery to challenge his convictions in these three

cases. The Superior Court denied the motion, noting that there were no pending

motions in any of the three cases. This appeal followed.

      (2)    On December 6, 2023, the Senior Court Clerk sent a notice to Carter

directing him to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s
lack of jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter. Carter has

responded to the notice to show cause and claims that the Superior Court’s order was

final. Carter is incorrect.

          (3)     Under the Delaware Constitution, only a final judgment may be

reviewed by the Court in a criminal case.1 The Superior Court’s order denying

Carter’s motion to compel the production of documents—presumably made in

anticipation of filing a motion for postconviction relief—is an interlocutory order.

If Carter is unsuccessful on the merits of any such motion, he may then appeal to

this Court for a review of that final judgment as well as any interlocutory rulings of

the Superior Court. At this time, however, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider

Carter’s interlocutory appeal.

          NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that the appeal is DISMISSED.

                                       BY THE COURT:

                                       /s/ N. Christopher Griffiths
                                       Justice




1
    Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b).
                                                2