Stigile v. State ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BRIAN STIGILE, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 349, 2022
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID Nos. 2205013206 (N) and
§ 2001020200 (N)
Appellee. §
§
Submitted: October 27, 2022
Decided: December 2, 2022
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses, it appears
to the Court that:
(1) On September 20, 2022, the appellant, Brian Stigile, filed a notice of
appeal from the Superior Court’s imposition of sentence on July 28, 2022. Stigile
pleaded guilty immediately before sentencing. A timely notice of appeal should
have been filed on or before August 29, 2022.1 The Chief Deputy Clerk issued a
1
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (providing that notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after
the sentence is imposed); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a) (providing that if the last day of the time period
prescribed by the Rules falls on the weekend or a holiday then the time period runs until the end
of the next day the Clerk’s office is open).
notice directing Stigile to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as
untimely filed.
(2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Stigile attributes the
untimely appeal to his quarantine for COVID-19 after sentencing, delays in his law
library access, and requesting an extension to file his appeal from the wrong court.
At the Court’s request, Stigile’s trial counsel and the State responded to Stigile’s
contentions.
(3) Stigile’s trial counsel stated that he met with Stigile on July 27, 2022,
via Zoom, to complete the guilty plea paperwork. During this meeting, trial counsel
advised Stigile that he needed to notify trial counsel’s office within thirty days of
sentencing if he wished to appeal. Stigile pleaded guilty the next day and was
immediately sentenced. Stigile never contacted his trial counsel about filing an
appeal. The State contends that the appeal must be dismissed.
(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
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).
2
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
(5) Stigile 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that this appeal is DISMISSED. The motions are denied as moot.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
Justice
5
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
6
See, e.g., Parker v. State, 2021 WL 4495821, at *1 (Del. Sept. 30, 2021) (dismissing untimely
appeal where the inmate claimed his appeal was late because he lacked education regarding the
law and COVID-19 restrictions interfered with his access to the prison law library); 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).
3