Mujica v. State
This text of Mujica v. State (Mujica 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 MUJICA, § § No. 252, 2021 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § § Court Below–Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1812004090 (N) § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §
Submitted: September 16, 2021 Decided: September 20, 2021
Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’
responses, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On August 9, 2021, the appellant, Edward Mujica, filed a notice of
appeal from a May 3, 2021 Superior Court order denying his motion for
postconviction relief. Under Rule 6(a)(iv), a timely notice of appeal should have
been filed on or before June 2, 2021. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice
directing Mujica to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely
filed.
(2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Mujica states that he did
not learn of the court’s order until after he inquired about the status of his motion for postconviction relief in July 2021. Mujica, who claims that he was taken into federal
custody and transferred from Howard R. Young Correctional Institution to York
County Prison in Pennsylvania, further alleges that he did not receive a copy of the
court’s order until July 30, 2021. The State acknowledges that it does not appear
that Mujica received timely notice of the Superior Court’s May 3, 2021 order. In
light of the evidence supporting Mujica’s claim that he did not receive the Superior
Court’s order in a timely manner, the State suggests that this Court remand the matter
with directions to the Superior Court to re-issue the May 2021 order so that Mujica
has the opportunity to file a timely notice of appeal.
(3) We agree that the proper course of action is to remand this matter to the
Superior Court. On remand, the Superior Court shall re-issue the May 2021 order.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to
the Superior Court for further action in accordance with this order. Jurisdiction is
not retained.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mujica v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mujica-v-state-del-2021.