Case Title: Harris v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 451, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-07-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTOINNE HARRIS, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 451, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9608016951 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 23, 2007 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 5, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 5th day of July 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On November 22, 2006, the Court issued an order remanding 
this matter to the Superior Court for findings of fact and conclusions of law 
regarding whether the appellant, Antoinne Harris, had been informed of his 
right to appeal by his court-appointed counsel following his VOP hearing on 
June 21, 2006.  On March 23, 2007, the Superior Court filed its report 
following remand.  The Superior Court, after holding a hearing, found as a 
matter of fact and concluded as a matter of law that Harris had never been 
informed of a right to appeal following his June 2006 VOP sentencing.  
 
2
(2) 
We directed the parties’ to file submissions in response to the 
Superior Court’s report on remand.  The State asserts in its supplemental 
response that there is neither an absolute right to counsel on appeal from a 
VOP adjudication, nor is there a duty under Supreme Court Rule 26 for 
counsel to advise the client of any right to appeal from a VOP adjudication.  
Therefore, the State concludes, Harris’ untimely appeal could not be the 
result of any arguable ineffective assistance of counsel and, thus, should not 
be permitted.  Harris disputes the State’s arguments and contends that the 
Superior Court’s report on remand sets forth a basis for permitting his 
untimely appeal to proceed. 
(3) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ positions, the Court 
has determined that this matter should be remanded to the Superior Court 
with instructions to vacate its June 2006 VOP sentencing order and to 
resentence Harris, with the assistance of counsel, in order to permit him the 
opportunity to file a timely appeal.  Although Supreme Court Rule 26 does 
not explicitly impose a continuing obligation on court-appointed counsel in 
VOP proceedings to represent the client on appeal, we conclude that 
counsel, at a minimum, has an ethical duty to inform the client of the right to 
appeal1 and that the failure of Harris’ court-appointed counsel to inform him 
                                                 
1 Accord Del. Lawyers’ R. Prof. Cond. 1.2(c), 1.3 cmt. 4 (2007). 
 
3
of his appeal rights in this case is grounds for granting Harris’ motion for 
reargument.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Harris’ motion for 
reargument is GRANTED, in part.  The Court’s order dated October 3, 
2006, which dismissed Harris’ appeal as untimely, is hereby RESCINDED.  
This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court for further 
proceedings consistent with this Order.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice