Case Title: Brinkley v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 212, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-07-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAMOTTE BRINKLEY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 212, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. I.D. No. 2012008946 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: June 26, 2023 
Decided: 
July 11, 2023 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 14, 2023, the appellant, Lamotte Brinkley, filed a letter 
indicating that he desired to file a direct appeal from his criminal conviction and 
sentence in this case.  Brinkley entered a guilty plea and the Superior Court 
sentenced him on April 21, 2022, more than a year before he filed his notice of 
appeal.  A timely notice of appeal was due on or before May 23, 2022.1 
 
1 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6(a)(iii) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed “[w]ithin 30 days after 
a sentence is imposed in a direct appeal of a criminal conviction”); id. R. 11(a) (providing that if 
a filing deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or other day on which the office of the 
Clerk is closed, “the period shall run until the end of the next day on which the office of the Clerk 
is open”). 
 
2 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk deemed Brinkley’s letter to be a notice of 
appeal and issued a notice directing Brinkley to show cause why the appeal should 
not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In response to the notice to show cause, Brinkley 
cites Supreme Court Rule 26(a) and states that his counsel “abandon[ed] his 
obligation to represent his client on his first appeal.”  As support for his position, 
Brinkley attaches a letter that he received from his counsel, which is dated February 
24, 2022, regarding the Superior Court’s denial of a motion to suppress following a 
hearing the previous day. 
(3) 
A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate 
jurisdiction.2  A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable 
time period to be effective.3  Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to 
file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely 
appeal cannot be considered.4  Brinkley does not contend that the untimeliness of 
this appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.  Moreover, the “jurisdictional 
defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of appeal cannot be excused in the 
absence of unusual circumstances which are not attributable to the appellant or the 
appellant’s attorney.”5  Brinkley does not indicate that he told his counsel that he 
 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
5 Dixon v. State, 2019 WL 6769679, at *1 (Del. Dec. 11, 2019) (internal quotations omitted). 
 
3 
desired to appeal,6 nor does the February 2022 letter from Brinkley’s counsel about 
the denial of the suppression motion establish circumstances that excuse the 
untimely filing of this appeal from Brinkley’s later conviction and sentence.7 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
 
 
6 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 26(a)(ii) (requiring trial counsel to docket a direct appeal if “the client 
desires to appeal, whether or not the appeal appears meritorious”). 
7 See Heller v. State, 2016 WL 4699158 (Del. Sept. 7, 2016) (dismissing untimely direct appeal 
despite appellant’s assertion in response to the notice to show cause that counsel had told him 
immediately after sentencing that counsel would file a notice of appeal).