Vinson v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 17, 2024
• Docket: 159, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARY VINSON, § § Defendant Below, § No. 159, 2024 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 2202007222 (K) § Appellee. §

Submitted: May 15, 2024 Decided: July 17, 2024

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

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

to the Court that:

(1) On April 17, 2024, the appellant, Mary Vinson, filed a letter deemed to

be a notice of appeal from a Superior Court sentence imposed on February 29, 2024

after Vinson pleaded guilty to multiple crimes on September 26, 2023. Under

Supreme Court Rules 6(a)(iii) and 11, a timely notice of appeal would have been

filed on or before April 1, 2024.

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

why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In her response to the notice to show cause, Vinson contends that the appeal should not be dismissed as

untimely because her former counsel (“Counsel”) failed to file a notice of appeal.

(3) At the Court’s request, Counsel and the State responded to Vinson’s

allegations. Counsel states that she reviewed Vinson’s appellate rights as set forth

in the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form with her. She also states that Vinson

never advised her that she wished to file an appeal. The State argues that the

untimeliness of the appeal is not attributable to court-related personnel and must be

dismissed.

(4) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1 A notice of appeal must be

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

be effective.2 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly

with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3 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.4

(5) Vinson does not claim that she told Counsel she wished to appeal and

has not shown that her failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-

related personnel.5 Because the untimeliness of the appeal is not attributable to

1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 3 Carr, 554 A.2d at 779. 4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 5 See, e.g., Fleming v. State, 2024 WL 2737472, at *1 (Del. May 24, 2024) (dismissing untimely direct appeal where the appellant did not argue that his untimely appeal was attributable to court- 2 court-related personnel, this appeal must be dismissed. If Vinson wishes to pursue

a claim that Counsel was ineffective for failing to file an appeal, “such a claim must

be pursued through a motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal

Rule 61.”6

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED

under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice

related personnel or that he told his counsel he wished to appeal); Scruggs v. State, 2018 WL 2058187, at *1 (Del. May 1, 2018) (dismissing untimely appeal where the appellant contended that his appeal was untimely because he lacked legal knowledge, his illiteracy made it difficult to request materials from the prison law library through correspondence, and his prison unit had changed). 6 Kane v. State, 2015 WL 4464778, at *1 (Del. July 21, 2015). 3