Dixon v. State ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    TROY DIXON,                             §
    §
    Defendant Below,                  §   No. 475, 2019
    Appellant,                        §
    §   Court Below: Superior Court
    v.                                §   of the State of Delaware
    §
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                      §   Cr. 
    ID. No. 1211005646A
    (N)
    §
    Plaintiff Below,                  §
    Appellee.                         §
    Submitted: November 25, 2019
    Decided: December 11, 2019
    Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
    ORDER
    After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,
    it appears to the Court that:
    (1)    On November 14, 2019, the appellant, Troy Dixon, filed a notice of
    appeal from a June 18, 2019 Superior Court order denying his second motion for
    postconviction relief, motion for appointment of counsel, motion for witness
    statements, and motion to compel. Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of
    appeal should have been filed on or before July 18, 2019.
    (2)    On November 15, 2019, the Clerk issued a notice directing Dixon to
    show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In response
    to the notice to show cause, Dixon states that privately retained counsel represented
    him in connection with his motions. Dixon asserts that the untimely filing should
    be excused because his counsel did not inform him until November 4, 2019 that the
    Superior Court had denied the motions, and counsel “forgot” to file a timely notice
    of appeal.
    (3)    This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal when the notice of
    appeal is not timely filed, unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file
    a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.1                     The
    jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of appeal cannot be
    excused “‘in the absence of unusual circumstances which are not attributable to the
    appellant or the appellant’s attorney.’”2
    (4)    The failure to file a timely appeal in this case is not attributable to court-
    related personnel. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
    that the appeal is DISMISSED.
    BY THE COURT:
    /s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
    Justice
    1
    Bey v. State, 
    402 A.2d 362
    , 363 (Del. 1979).
    2
    Laws v. State, 
    2001 WL 463354
    (Del. Apr. 27, 2001). See also Riggs v. Riggs, 
    539 A.2d 163
    (Del. 1988) (dismissing an untimely appeal where an error by the appellant’s attorney caused the
    untimeliness).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 475, 2019

Judges: Vaughn, J.

Filed Date: 12/11/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/12/2019