Case Title: Guy v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 532, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYRONE GUY,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 500, 2008 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0107017041  
 
Appellee.   
 
 
§ 
 
 
TYRONE GUY,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 532, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0107017041  
 
Appellee.   
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 17, 2009 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 28, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
This 28th day of September 2009, the Court has considered the pro se 
appellant’s response to the notice to show cause issued in appeal No. 532, 
 
2 
2009, the State’s answer to that response, and the State’s motion to remand 
appeal No. 500, 2008, and it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
In September 2008, the appellant, Tyrone Guy, filed an appeal, 
No. 500, 2008, from the Superior Court’s denial of his first motion for 
postconviction relief.  It appears that Guy was represented by counsel in the 
Superior Court and is proceeding with the same counsel on appeal. 
 
(2) 
In July 2009, Guy, appearing pro se, filed a second motion for 
postconviction relief.  Guy sought relief on the basis of this Court’s opinion 
issued on February 17, 2009 in Allen v. State.1  The Superior Court denied 
Guy’s motion on the basis that appeal No. 500, 2008 was pending in this 
Court.  Thereafter, Guy filed a pro se appeal, No. 532, 2009, from that 
decision.  
   
(3) 
On September 10, 2009, the Clerk issued a notice directing that 
Guy show cause why appeal No. 532, 2009 should not be dismissed as 
untimely filed.2  In response, Guy states that the delay should be excused 
because he mailed his appeal within the thirty-day appeal period. 
 
 
(4) 
Guy’s response is unavailing.  The jurisdictional defect that is 
created by the untimely filing of a notice of appeal cannot be excused “in the 
                                                 
1 See Allen v. State, 970 A.2d 203 (Del. 2009) (reversing judgments of conviction and 
remanding for a new trial).  
2 Guy’s appeal from the Superior Court’s August 7, 2009 order was filed on September 9, 
2009.  See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (providing for thirty-day appeal period).   
 
3 
absence of unusual circumstances which are not attributable to the appellant 
or the appellant’s attorney.”3  Guy has not demonstrated that the delay in 
filing appeal No. 532, 2009 was due to unusual circumstances.4  
Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.   
 
(5) 
On September 17, 2009, the State filed an answer and motion to 
remand.   The State supports the dismissal of appeal No. 532, 2009 and 
seeks to remand appeal No. 500, 2008 “for the filing of a second 
postconviction motion with the assistance of counsel.”  According to the 
State, “[i]n the interest of justice and judicial economy, consolidation and 
resolution of [Guy’s Allen claim] with [appeal] No. 500, 2008 would be 
appropriate.”  Guy’s counsel in appeal No. 500, 2008 consents to the remand 
requested by the State. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 19(c), that the State’s motion to remand in appeal No. 500, 2008 is 
GRANTED.  This matter is remanded to the Superior Court for the filing of 
a second postconviction motion with the assistance of counsel.  Briefing in 
appeal No. 500, 2008 is STAYED.    Jurisdiction is retained.     
                                                 
3 Riggs v. Riggs, 539 A.2d 163, 164 (Del. 1988). 
4 See Deputy v. Roy, 2004 WL 1535479 (Del. Supr.) (citing Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 
779 (Del. 1989) (dismissing untimely appeal after concluding that delay in prison mail 
system cannot enlarge jurisdictional appeal period). 
 
4 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 6 and 
29(b), that appeal No. 532, 2009 is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice