Coleman v. State ( 2014 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DEVIN L. COLEMAN, §
§
Defendant Below- § No. 434, 2014
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware,
STATE OF DELAWARE, § in and for Kent County
§ Cr. ID Nos. 1303012706
Plaintiff Below- § and 1303004663
Appellee. §
Submitted: September 10, 2014
Decided: September 16, 2014
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices.
ORDER
This 16th day of September 2014, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On August 12, 2014, the Court received appellant Devin Coleman’s
notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated June 17, 2014, sentencing him
on multiple criminal charges following the entry of his guilty plea. Pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or
before July 17, 2014.
(2) The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b)
directing Coleman to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as
untimely filed.1 Coleman filed a response to the notice to show cause on August
19, 2014. He asserts that his appeal should not be dismissed because his counsel
knew that he wanted to appeal the Superior Court’s denial of his right to represent
himself, and his counsel failed to file the notice of appeal on his behalf.
(3) The Court directed Coleman’s trial counsel to file a response.
Counsel indicates that Coleman had requested a provision in his guilty plea
agreement preserving his right to appeal but that no such provision was included.
Counsel further states that after the Superior Court accepted the plea, he and
Coleman never discussed counsel filing an appeal on his behalf. The State filed an
answer asserting that the appeal must be dismissed because it was not filed within
30 days and because Coleman’s untimely filing is not attributable to court
personnel.
(4) The State’s position is correct. 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 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file
1
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii).
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
Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012).
-2-
a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal
cannot be considered.5
(5) Defense counsel is not court-related personnel.6 Consequently, even
assuming that Coleman informed defense counsel of his wish to appeal following
the entry of his guilty plea (which defense counsel disputes), this case does not fall
within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice
of appeal. To the extent Coleman asserts ineffective assistance of counsel, such a
claim must be pursued through a motion for postconviction relief under Superior
Court Criminal Rule 61.7 Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal must be
dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely
Justice
5
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
6
Chrichlow v. State, 2009 WL 2027250 (Del. July 14, 2009).
7
Id.-3-