Brinkley v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 11, 2023
• Docket: 212, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LAMOTTE BRINKLEY, § § Defendant Below, § No. 212, 2023 Appellant, § § Court Below: Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. I.D. No. 2012008946 (N) § Appellee. §

Submitted: June 26, 2023 Decided: July 11, 2023

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to

the Court that:

(1) On June 14, 2023, the appellant, Lamotte Brinkley, filed a letter

indicating that he desired to file a direct appeal from his criminal conviction and

sentence in this case. Brinkley entered a guilty plea and the Superior Court

sentenced him on April 21, 2022, more than a year before he filed his notice of

appeal. A timely notice of appeal was due on or before May 23, 2022.1

1 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6(a)(iii) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed “[w]ithin 30 days after a sentence is imposed in a direct appeal of a criminal conviction”); id. R. 11(a) (providing that if a filing deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or other day on which the office of the Clerk is closed, “the period shall run until the end of the next day on which the office of the Clerk is open”). (2) The Senior Court Clerk deemed Brinkley’s letter to be a notice of

appeal and issued a notice directing Brinkley to show cause why the appeal should

not be dismissed as untimely filed. In response to the notice to show cause, Brinkley

cites Supreme Court Rule 26(a) and states that his counsel “abandon[ed] his

obligation to represent his client on his first appeal.” As support for his position,

Brinkley attaches a letter that he received from his counsel, which is dated February

24, 2022, regarding the Superior Court’s denial of a motion to suppress following a

hearing the previous day.

(3) A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate

jurisdiction.2 A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable

time period to be effective.3 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to

file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely

appeal cannot be considered.4 Brinkley does not contend that the untimeliness of

this appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. Moreover, the “jurisdictional

defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of appeal cannot be excused in the

absence of unusual circumstances which are not attributable to the appellant or the

appellant’s attorney.”5 Brinkley does not indicate that he told his counsel that he

2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 3 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 5 Dixon v. State, 2019 WL 6769679, at *1 (Del. Dec. 11, 2019) (internal quotations omitted).

2 desired to appeal,6 nor does the February 2022 letter from Brinkley’s counsel about

the denial of the suppression motion establish circumstances that excuse the

untimely filing of this appeal from Brinkley’s later conviction and sentence.7

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

that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice

6 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 26(a)(ii) (requiring trial counsel to docket a direct appeal if “the client desires to appeal, whether or not the appeal appears meritorious”). 7 See Heller v. State, 2016 WL 4699158 (Del. Sept. 7, 2016) (dismissing untimely direct appeal despite appellant’s assertion in response to the notice to show cause that counsel had told him immediately after sentencing that counsel would file a notice of appeal).