Case Title: Laws v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 117, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COU RT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MONROE T. LAWS,
      §
      §
Defendant Below,
      § No. 117, 2001
Appellant,
      §
      § Court Below – Superior Court of the
v.
      § State of Delaware, in and for New
      § Castle County in Cr.A.Nos. IN89-
STATE OF DELAWARE,
      § 02-0266-R2 through 0268-R2.
      §
Plaintiff Below,
      §
Appellee.
      § Def. ID No. 30900552DI
   Submitted:   March 29, 2001
   Decided:     April 27, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 27th day of April 2001, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On March 15, 2001, the Court received the appellant’s
untimely pro se notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order of
January 5, 2001, denying the appellant’s second motion for postconviction
relief.  On March 15, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice directing the
appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as
untimely pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 6 and 29.
2
(2)
In his response dated March 19, 2001, the appellant states that
he was represented by two attorneys in the Superior Court, and that neither
attorney filed a timely appeal on his behalf, as he had requested.  The
appellant contends that he should not be penalized for his attorneys’
mistake.
(3)
It appears from the record that the appellant was represented
by privately retained local and out-of-state counsel in the Superior Court.
A privately retained counsel does not have a continuing obligation under
Supreme Court Rule 26 to represent a defendant on appeal from the denial
of postconviction relief.1
(4)
This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal when the
notice of appeal is not filed in a timely manner, unless the appellant can
demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable
to court-related personnel.2  The jurisdictional defect created by the
untimely filing of a notice of appeal cannot be excused “in the absence of
                                          
1 Supr. Ct. R. 26(a)(2); Murray v. State, Del. Supr., No. 248, 1990, Walsh, J., 1990 WL
169040 (Oct. 15, 1990) (ORDER); compare Dixon v. State, Del. Supr., 581 A.2d 1115
(1990) (continuing duty of representation of trial counsel on direct appeal).
2 Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).
3
unusual circumstances which are not attributable to the appellant or the
appellant’s attorney.”3
(5)
The failure to file a timely appeal in this case is not
attributable to court-related personnel.  Therefore, this case does not fall
within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a
notice of appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme
Court Rules 6 and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                          
3 Riggs v. Riggs, Del. Supr., 539 A.2d 163, 164 (1988).