Mellette v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: October 27, 2023
• Docket: 281, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MATTHEW L. MELLETTE, § § Defendant Below, § No. 281, 2023 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 2212002448 (N) § Appellee. §

Submitted: September 1, 2023 Decided: October 27, 2023

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

ORDER

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

to the Court that:

(1) On August 14, 2023, the appellant, Matthew L. Mellette, filed a notice

of appeal from a Superior Court sentence imposed on May 15, 2023 following

Mellette’s guilty plea. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iii), a timely notice of appeal

should have been filed by June 14, 2023.

(2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Mellette to show cause

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

notice to show cause, Mellette argues that his appointed counsel (“Counsel”) was ineffective in failing to preserve his right to appeal with the assistance of counsel as

set forth in the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form.

(3) At the Court’s request, Counsel responded to Mellette’s response to the

notice to show cause. Counsel states that he advised Mellette if he pleaded guilty he

would waive certain rights. The Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form reflects that

the box next to the question “Do you understand that because you are pleading guilty

you will not have a trial, and therefore you waive (give up) your constitutional

rights…to appeal, if convicted, to the Delaware Supreme Court with the assistance

of a lawyer?”1 Counsel further states that Mellette did not ask him to file an appeal

and that he did not tell Mellette he would file an appeal.

(4) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2 A notice of appeal must be

received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period in

order to be effective.3 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to

comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4

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.5

1 Exhibit A to Appellant’s Response to the Notice to Show Cause. 2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 4 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2 (5) Mellette has not shown that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal

is attributable to court-related personnel.6 Consequently, this case does not fall

within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of

appeal, and this appeal must be dismissed. If Mellette wishes to pursue an

ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “such a claim must be pursued through a

motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.”7

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

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

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

6 See, e.g., Young v. State, 2018 WL 6118713, at *1 (Del. Nov. 20, 2018) (dismissing appeal of inmate as untimely where there was a prison lockdown, limits on law library access, and the inmate’s trial counsel advised that he did not ask her about filing an appeal); Winchester v. State, 2018 WL 4212138, at *1 (Del. Sept. 4, 2018) (“Defense counsel is not court-related personnel.”). 7 Kane v. State, 2015 WL 4464778, at *1 (Del. July 21, 2015). 3