Brittingham v. State
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MALACHI BRITTINGHAM, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 127, 2020 Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID Nos. 1901009608,
§ 1902011833, 1902017523 (N) Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §
Submitted: April 30, 2020 Decided: May 4, 2020
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
Having considered the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On March 27, 2020, the appellant, Malachi Brittingham, filed a notice of appeal from a Superior Court order refusing to consider his pro se motion to dismiss pending criminal charges because he was represented by counsel.1 The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Brittingham to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider a criminal interlocutory appeal. In his response to the notice to show cause, Brittingham argues that review of his interlocutory appeal would serve a beneficial purpose.
(2) This Court may only review a final judgment in a criminal case.2 The Superior Court order refusing to consider Brittingham’s pro se motion to dismiss is not a final order.3 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/ Karen L. Valihura Justice
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.