Navarro v. State

EFiled: Mar 05 2020 09:58AM EST
Filing ID 64791073
Case Number 32,2020
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EUDALDO NAVARRO, §
§ No. 32, 2020
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below–Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID No. 1709006495 (N)
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: March 3, 2020
Decided: March 5, 2020
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,
Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,
it appears to the Court that:
(1) On January 23, 2020, the Court received Eudaldo Navarro’s notice of
appeal from a December 16, 2019 Superior Court order denying his motion for
sentence modification. 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 January 15, 2020.1
1
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a).
(2) A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate
jurisdiction.2 The jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of
appeal cannot be excused unless the appellant can demonstrate that the delay in filing
is attributable to court-related personnel.3
(3) On January 24, 2020, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing
Navarro to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Navarro
filed a response to the notice to show cause, stating that he had an appointment at
the law library and filled out the paperwork necessary to file a notice of appeal.
However, Navarro maintains that he did not receive his inmate account statement—
which he needed in order to complete his motion to proceed in forma pauperis—
from the Department of Correction business office until January 17, 2020.
(4) In this case, the Court directed the State to respond to Navarro’s
response to the notice to show cause. The State responded, noting that Navarro’s
prison mail log indicates that he received mail from the Superior Court—
presumably, the Superior Court’s December 16, 2019 order—on December 23,
2019, and, therefore, Navarro had more than three weeks to file a timely notice of
appeal in this Court.
2
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
3
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
2
(5) We conclude that Navarro’s response to the notice to show cause does
not provide a basis for excusing his untimely filing of the notice of appeal. A notice
of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable time period to be
effective.4 Prison personnel, including employees of the business office, are not
court-related personnel.5 Because the record does not reflect that Navarro’s failure
to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal
must be dismissed.
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
4
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
5
Roy v. State, 2014 WL 2957264, at *1 (Del. June 27, 2014).
3