Case Title: Dickson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 334, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

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

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GREGORY C. DICKSON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 334, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0808020674 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 16, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 7, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 7th day of July 2009, upon consideration of the State of 
Delaware’s request for remand, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On October 27, 2008, the defendant-appellant, Gregory C. 
Dickson, pleaded guilty to one count of Failure to Register as a Sex 
Offender.  Dickson was sentenced on April 24, 2009.  While the sentencing 
order appears to have been docketed on April 24, 2009, there is a notation 
that states the order was “signed and filed 05/01/09.”  Any appeal from 
Dickson’s convictions and sentences should, therefore, have been filed, at 
 
2 
the very least, on or before June 1, 2009.1  However, Dickson did not file his 
pro se appeal in this Court until June 9, 2009. 
 
(2)   On June 9, 2009, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to 
Dickson to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely 
filed.  Dickson filed responses to the notice to show cause on June 16 and 
June 19, 2009.  In the responses, Dickson states that his failure to file a 
timely notice of appeal was not his fault.   
 
(3) 
The Court requested the State to reply to Dickson’s response to 
the notice to show cause.  In its reply, the State urges that, in these 
circumstances, the matter should be remanded to the Superior Court for a 
determination of whether Dickson instructed his attorney to file an appeal.2  
If the Superior Court determines that Dickson instructed his attorney to file 
an appeal, then its sentencing order should be vacated and Dickson re-
sentenced, with the assistance of counsel, so that a timely appeal may be 
filed.3 
 
(4) 
In the interest of justice, we conclude that this matter should be 
remanded to the Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing and further 
proceedings in accordance with this Order. 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (ii).  
2 Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 485 (2000). 
3 Id. at 478. 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is hereby 
REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance 
herewith.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice