Jobes v. State
This text of Jobes v. State (Jobes 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
EDWARD A. JOBES, § § Defendant Below- § No. 313, 2018 Appellant, § § v. § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Cr. ID K1510004414 Plaintiff Below- § Appellee. §
Submitted: July 26, 2018 Decided: August 30, 2018
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause, the appellant’s response, and
the State’s reply, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On June 18, 2018, the Court received the appellant Edward Jobes’ pro
se notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated January 11, 2018, denying
his first motion for postconviction relief. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a
timely notice of appeal should have been filed within thirty days after docketing of
the trial court’s order.
(2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Jobes to show cause
why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Jobes filed a response to the notice to show on July 2, 2018, asserting that the Superior Court never provided him
with a copy of the order denying his postconviction motion. Jobes contends that he
only found out about the order through the prison law library’s LEXIS system.
(3) The State filed a reply to Jobes’ response. The State contends that the
prison mail records support Jobes’ assertion that he never received a copy of the
Superior Court’s order. Because it is unknown whether the issue was caused by
Superior Court personnel, the postal service, or prison mail personnel, the State
indicates that it does not object to remanding this matter to the Superior Court to
reissue its order denying postconviction relief in order to allow Jobes the opportunity
to file a timely notice of appeal.
(4) We agree that the proper course of action is to remand this matter to the
Superior Court. Upon remand, the Superior Court should reissue its order and
provide Jobes with a copy in order to permit Jobes the opportunity to file a timely
appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the matter is
REMANDED to the Superior Court for further action in accordance with this order.
Jurisdiction is not retained.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jobes v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jobes-v-state-del-2018.