Garrison v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: February 9, 2024
• Docket: 32, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TREMAYNE GARRISON, § § Defendant Below, § No. 32, 2024 Appellant, § § Court Below: Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1904012875 (S) § Appellee. §

Submitted: February 8, 2024 Decided: February 9, 2024

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

ORDER

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

the Court that:

(1) On January 26, 2024, the appellant, Tremayne Garrison, filed a letter

asserting that the Superior Court has erroneously denied various motions that he has

filed in Criminal ID No. 1904012875. Garrison was sentenced in the case on March

25, 2022. The office of the Clerk of this Court deemed the letter to be a notice of

appeal from the Superior Court’s most recent action in the matter, which was an

order denying a motion for modification of sentence. The Superior Court’s order

was docketed on December 18, 2023. Under Supreme Court Rules 6 and 11, a timely

notice of appeal should have been filed on or before January 17, 2024. (2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Garrison to show cause

why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In response to the notice

to show cause, Garrison argues that the counsel who represented him for his guilty

plea and sentencing failed to satisfy counsel’s continuing obligation under Supreme

Court Rule 26(a) to represent Garrison on appeal. Garrison contends that the Court

should therefore excuse the untimely filing of this appeal.

(3) The appeal must be dismissed. A notice of appeal must be timely filed

to invoke the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.1 A notice of appeal must be received by

the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.2 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.3 The failure to file a

timely appeal in this matter is not attributable to court-related personnel.4 The

remedy for a criminal defendant who asserts that his counsel failed to perfect a

timely direct appeal, contrary to the client’s expressed wishes and the attorney’s

1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 2 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 3 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 4 See Henry v. State, 2013 WL 3929191, at *1 (Del. July 25, 2013) (dismissing untimely direct appeal from guilty plea and sentencing in which defendant asserted that his counsel failed to file a timely appeal even though the defendant “‘made it clear’ to his defense counsel that he wanted to appeal”). We note that Garrison has previously filed a timely pro se appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for modification of sentence. Garrison v. State, 2022 WL 16954785 (Del. Nov. 15, 2022).

2 obligations under Rule 26(a), is a timely motion for postconviction relief,5 not an

untimely appeal from denial of a motion for sentence modification.

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

that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice

5 E.g., Henry, 2013 WL 3929191, at *1 n.6; Dixon v. State, 581 A.2d 1115, 1117 (Del. 1990).