Robles v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: April 2, 2020
• Docket: 98, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

THOMAS ROBLES, § § No. 98, 2020 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § § v. § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Cr. ID No. 1601002267 (N) Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: March 26, 2020 Decided: April 2, 2020

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice: VALIHURA, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

ORDER

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

to the Court that:

(1) On March 6, 2020, the Court received Thomas Robles’ notice of appeal

from a March 3, 2017 Superior Court sentencing order. To be timely filed, the notice

of appeal had to be received by the Clerk or a Deputy Clerk in any county on or

before April 3, 2017.1

1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). Because the thirtieth day fell on a Sunday, the notice of appeal was due the following business day. Del. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a). (2) The Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing Robles to show cause

why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule

6. In his response to the notice to show cause, Robles contends that he advised his

trial counsel that he wished to appeal and that counsel informed him that counsel

would file an appeal within thirty days. Robles further represents that he tried to

correspond with counsel several times during the following years. Robles asks that

the Court accept his late notice of appeal so that he may pursue claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel.

(3) The Senior Court Clerk directed Robles’ trial counsel to answer Robles’

response to the notice to show cause. Counsel responded and avers that he has no

recollection of Robles’ requesting counsel to file a motion to withdraw his guilty

plea, a plea that counsel opines was favorable to Robles in light of the charges he

faced and the evidence against him. Had Robles sought to withdraw his plea and the

Superior Court had denied that request, counsel states that he would have filed a

notice of appeal followed by an application to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule

26 because, in his opinion, there were no arguably appealable issues. Counsel

further represents that he has not received any correspondence from Robles since his

sentencing. Finally, counsel maintains that he has not received any notice to respond

to a motion for postconviction relief filed by Robles.

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

received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3 Unless an

appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is

attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.4 An

appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the

jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.5

(5) Robles does not claim, and record does not reflect, that his failure to

file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.

Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that

mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. With regard to Robles’ claims

regarding trial counsel, Robles does not explain why he waited almost three years to

file this notice of appeal. The Superior Court docket reflects that the time for filing

an appeal as well as the time for filing a motion for postconviction relief had long-

since passed before he filed a motion for transcripts in the fall of 2019. This appeal

must be dismissed.

2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 5 State v. Smith, 47 A.3d 481, 482 (Del. 2012).

3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court

Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

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