Case Title: Parkhill v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 303, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-07-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARK L. PARKHILL,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 303, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1105006573 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 2, 2012 
Decided: July 16, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 16th day of July 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On June 4, 2012, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s March 6, 2012 violation of probation 
(“VOP”) sentencing order.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely 
notice of appeal from the VOP sentencing order should have been filed on or 
before April 5, 2012. 
 
(2) 
On June 5, 2012, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why his appeal 
should not be dismissed as untimely.  The appellant filed a response to the 
notice to show cause on June 11, 2012.  The appellant states that his attorney 
 
2
failed to notify him of his right to appeal his VOP sentence.  The appellant’s 
attorney filed a reply to the appellant’s response in which he states that he 
cannot verify that the appellant was notified of his right to appeal. 
 
(3) 
Under Supreme Court Rule 26(k), counsel for a probationer 
must inform his client of the right to appeal a VOP sentence.  In this case, 
the appellant’s counsel is unable to confirm that the appellant was notified of 
his right to appeal.  Moreover, the Superior Court docket does not reflect 
that the appellant was given the form indicating his right to appeal from his 
VOP sentence.  Under such circumstances, and without any objection from 
the State, we conclude that this matter should be remanded to the Superior 
Court for further fact finding regarding the appellant’s knowledge of his 
appeal rights and, if necessary, modification of the sentencing date in order 
to permit the appellant to file a timely notice of appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is hereby 
REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance 
with this Order.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice