Case Title: Bennett v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 178, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALEXANDER A. BENNETT, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 178, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0801023758 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 4, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June  15 , 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of June 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 27, 2009, the Court received Alexander Bennett’s 
pro se notice of appeal from a Superior Court sentencing order entered on 
February 4, 2009.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of 
appeal should have been filed on or before March 6, 2009. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing Bennett to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Bennett, through his trial counsel, filed a 
                                                 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6 (a) (ii). 
 
 
-2- 
response to the notice to show cause asserting that his trial counsel never 
informed him that he had only thirty days to file an appeal.  Bennett’s trial 
counsel did not dispute Bennett’s assertion but merely requests that the delay 
in filing a timely appeal be excused in Bennett’s case.  The State has filed a 
reply, suggesting that, under the circumstances, this matter be remanded to 
the Superior Court to determine whether Bennett expressed a desire to 
appeal to his trial counsel.  If the court so finds, then the State suggests that 
the Superior Court re-impose Bennett’s sentence in order to reset the clock 
on Bennett’s time to appeal.   
 
(3) 
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  Unless the appellant can demonstrate 
that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.4  Trial counsel is not “court-
related personnel.”  Accordingly, the Court cannot, as Bennett’s counsel 
requests, simply discharge the notice of appeal and excuse his untimely 
filing. 
                                                 
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 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3- 
(4) 
In part, we agree with the State that the proper course of action 
is to remand this matter to the Superior Court.5  Upon remand, the Superior 
Court should resentence Bennett to permit his counsel the opportunity to file 
a timely appeal.  Resentencing shall take place upon notice to the parties as 
soon as practicable but no later than 30 days from the date of this order. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within 
matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for further action in 
accordance with this order.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
                                                 
5 See:  Sheeran v. State, 526 A.2d 886, 888 (Del. 1987).  In Braxton v. State, 479 A.2d 
831 (Del. 1984), this Court noted that an alternative approach would be a motion for 
post-conviction relief.