Crippen v. State
This text of Crippen v. State (Crippen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JEFFREY CRIPPEN, § § Defendant Below, § No. 68, 2019 Appellant, § § Court Below: Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § C.A. No. K17M-08-008 § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §
Submitted: March 28, 2019 Decided: April 2, 2019
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause, the appellant’s response, and
the State’s response, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On February 18, 2019, the appellant, Jeffrey Crippen, filed a notice of
appeal from a Superior Court order dated December 28, 2018, denying his
application for return of property under 16 Del. C. § 4784 and Superior Court Civil
Rule 71.3. Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been
filed on or before January 28, 2019. (2) A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate
jurisdiction.1 The jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of
appeal cannot be excused unless the appellant can demonstrate that the delay in filing
is attributable to court-related personnel.2
(3) On February 18, 2019, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing
Crippen to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.
In response to the notice to show cause, Crippen states that he mailed the notice of
appeal in time for it to be received by the deadline for filing his appeal, but because
he used an incorrect mailing address, the mail was returned to him as undeliverable
after the deadline had passed. Crippen’s statements are consistent with the
envelopes in which he mailed his notice of appeal and with the mail log of the James
T. Vaughn Correctional Center (“JTVCC”), where Crippen is incarcerated.
(4) Although Crippen does not explicitly state that prison personnel
provided him with the incorrect mailing address, he cites Phillips v. State,3 in which
the prison law library provided the appellant with an inaccurate mailing address,
resulting in an untimely appeal. In Phillips, the Court, with the State’s agreement,
remanded the case for the Superior Court to vacate and reissue its order so that the
appellant would have an opportunity to file a timely notice of appeal.
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 2 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 3 2018 WL 3524659 (July 20, 2018).
2 (5) In this case, the Court directed the State to respond to Crippen’s reliance
on Phillips and to file a copy of the address list that the JTVCC law library provides
to prisoners for the filing of appeals. The State included with its response an
affidavit from a member of the law library staff, which indicates that since June
2018, the JTVCC law library has not maintained a court address list for inmate use,
but rather provides inmates with addresses from the applicable court’s website. The
affidavit further indicates that the address that the JTVCC provides for the Delaware
Supreme Court is 55 The Green, Dover, DE 19901, which is this Court’s correct
mailing address.
(6) Crippen’s response to the notice to show cause does not provide a basis
for excusing the untimely filing of the notice of appeal. A notice of appeal must be
received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.4 Prison
personnel are not court-related personnel.5 Nor has Delaware adopted a rule similar
to the federal prison mailbox rule, which deems a notice of appeal as filed at the time
it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.6 Because the record does not reflect
that Crippen’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related
personnel, the appeal must be dismissed.
4 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 5 Phillips, 2018 WL 3524659, at *1. 6 Schafferman v. State, 2016 WL 5929953 (Del. Oct. 11, 2016).
3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Crippen v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crippen-v-state-del-2019.