Bishop v. State ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    SAMUEL BISHOP,                             §
    §      No. 406, 2017
    Defendant Below,                    §
    Appellant,                          §      Court Below—Superior Court of the
    §      State of Delaware
    v.                                  §
    §      Cr. ID No. 86013220DI (N)
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                         §
    §
    Plaintiff Below,                    §
    Appellee.                           §
    Submitted: October 18, 2017
    Decided:   November 3, 2017
    Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
    ORDER
    This 3rd day of November 2017, it appears to the Court that:
    (1)    In 1979, the appellant, Samuel Bishop, was found guilty of criminal
    offenses for which he received two life sentences.              Bishop’s convictions and
    sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in 1984.
    (2)    On October 4, 2017, Bishop filed a notice of appeal from a Superior
    Court order dated October 22, 1979. The Clerk issued a notice directing Bishop to
    show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.1 Bishop filed
    1
    Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the order
    sought to be reviewed.
    a response to the notice on October 18, 2017. The response does not address the
    untimeliness of the appeal.
    (3)    A review of the Superior Court docket in Bishop’s case does not reflect
    the issuance of an order on October 22, 1979 or the existence of an order that was
    appealable to this Court on October 4, 2017, when Bishop filed his appeal, or on
    October 18, 2017, when Bishop filed his response to the notice to show cause.2 A
    closer review of Bishop’s appeal papers suggests that Bishop may have filed the
    appeal in an effort to seek the Court’s reconsideration of his direct appeal.3 But
    whether appealing an order dated October 22, 1979 or seeking reconsideration of his
    direct appeal, Bishop’s notice of appeal manifestly fails to invoke the jurisdiction of
    the Court.
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
    that the appeal is DISMISSED.
    BY THE COURT:
    /s/ Karen L. Valihura
    Justice
    2
    Since then, it appears that the Superior Court issued an order on October 27, 2017, denying
    motions filed by Bishop. See Docket at 105, State v. Bishop, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 86013220DI
    (Oct. 27, 2017) (order).
    3
    In motions filed on November 2, 2017, Bishop asked the Court to appoint him counsel and for
    an evidentiary hearing to review and overturn his direct appeal.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 406, 2017

Judges: Valihura J.

Filed Date: 11/3/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2017