Maclennan v. State

Decision Date19 October 1995
Docket NumberNo. 399,1995,399
Citation670 A.2d 1339
PartiesRobert MacLENNAN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. . Submitted:
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Delaware

Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr.A. Nos. 95-02-1394 through 1400.

Superior Court, New Castle County

DISMISSED.

Before VEASEY, C.J., HARTNETT, and BERGER, JJ.

ORDER

BERGER, Justice.

This 25th day of October 1995, it appearing to the Court that:

1. On October 10, 1995, the appellant, through counsel, filed a notice of appeal from an order of the Superior Court dated September 13, 1995. The September 13 order denied appellant's motion to dismiss criminal charges pending against him on the ground of double jeopardy. On October 13, 1995, the Acting Clerk issued a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for this Court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain a criminal interlocutory appeal.

2. The appellant filed his response to the notice to show cause on October 19, 1995. The appellant cites Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977), for the proposition that a defendant may immediately appeal the denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.

3. Appellant's reliance on the Abney decision is misplaced. In Abney, the United States Supreme Court held that the "pretrial denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is obviously not 'final' in the sense that it terminates the criminal proceedings in the district court." Id. at 657. Nonetheless, the court held, as a matter of federal law, that such a pretrial order fell within the "collateral order" exception to the final judgment rule and thus was a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the federal statute governing federal appeals.

4. This Court's appellate jurisdiction, however, is limited by the Delaware Constitution. See Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(b). As a matter of Delaware constitutional law, this Court has held that the denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds is not a final judgment for appeal purposes. See In re Hovey, Del.Supr., 545 A.2d 626, 627 (1988). There is no jurisdictional basis for this Court to entertain interlocutory appeals in criminal cases as there is in civil cases. See Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(1)(a); Supr.Ct.R. 42. Consequently, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review MacLennan's interlocutory...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT