Case Title: Chrichlow v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 300, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEINO S. CHRICHLOW, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 300, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0611011396 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 5, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 14, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 14th day of July 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 26, 2009, the Court received appellant’s notice of appeal 
from the Superior Court’s amended sentencing order dated January 17, 2008.  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed 
on or before February 18, 2008. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) 
directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as 
untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on June 5, 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (ii). 
 
 
-2- 
2009.  He asserts that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely notice 
of appeal on his behalf.2   He asks that he be allowed to pursue his appeal out of 
time.  
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3  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.4  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.5 
(4) 
Defense counsel is not “court-related personnel.”  To the extent 
Chrichlow asserts ineffective assistance of counsel, such a claim must be pursued 
through a postconviction motion filed in accordance with Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 61. The Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice 
                                                 
2  The State filed a notice of appeal in Chrichlow’s case, and Chrichlow’s codefendant 
filed a cross-appeal.  Chrichlow did not cross-appeal.  This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s 
judgments.  See State v. Bridgers & Chrichlow, Nos. 609/610, 2007, Holland, J. (Mar. 30, 2009). 
 
3Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829(1989). 
4Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).