Case Title: Garrison v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 32, 2024

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-02-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TREMAYNE GARRISON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 32, 2024 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1904012875 (S) 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: February 8, 2024 
Decided: 
February 9, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On January 26, 2024, the appellant, Tremayne Garrison, filed a letter 
asserting that the Superior Court has erroneously denied various motions that he has 
filed in Criminal ID No. 1904012875.  Garrison was sentenced in the case on March 
25, 2022.  The office of the Clerk of this Court deemed the letter to be a notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s most recent action in the matter, which was an 
order denying a motion for modification of sentence.  The Superior Court’s order 
was docketed on December 18, 2023.  Under Supreme Court Rules 6 and 11, a timely 
notice of appeal should have been filed on or before January 17, 2024.   
 
2
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Garrison to show cause 
why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In response to the notice 
to show cause, Garrison argues that the counsel who represented him for his guilty 
plea and sentencing failed to satisfy counsel’s continuing obligation under Supreme 
Court Rule 26(a) to represent Garrison on appeal.  Garrison contends that the Court 
should therefore excuse the untimely filing of this appeal. 
(3) 
The appeal must be dismissed.  A notice of appeal must be timely filed 
to invoke the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.1  A notice of appeal must be received by 
the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.2  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.3  The failure to file a 
timely appeal in this matter is not attributable to court-related personnel.4  The 
remedy for a criminal defendant who asserts that his counsel failed to perfect a 
timely direct appeal, contrary to the client’s expressed wishes and the attorney’s 
 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 
3 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
4 See Henry v. State, 2013 WL 3929191, at *1 (Del. July 25, 2013) (dismissing untimely direct 
appeal from guilty plea and sentencing in which defendant asserted that his counsel failed to file a 
timely appeal even though the defendant “‘made it clear’ to his defense counsel that he wanted to 
appeal”).  We note that Garrison has previously filed a timely pro se appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of a motion for modification of sentence.  Garrison v. State, 2022 WL 16954785 
(Del. Nov. 15, 2022). 
 
3
obligations under Rule 26(a), is a timely motion for postconviction relief,5 not an 
untimely appeal from denial of a motion for sentence modification. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                           Chief Justice  
 
 
5 E.g., Henry, 2013 WL 3929191, at *1 n.6; Dixon v. State, 581 A.2d 1115, 1117 (Del. 1990).