Case Title: Crosell v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 409, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-11-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TAVAUGHN M. CROSELL,  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 409, 2011 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of  
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
v. 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0907029372 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  September 15, 2011 
Decided:  November 22, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 22nd day of November 2011, upon consideration of the Clerk’s notice to 
show cause, the appellant’s response to the notice and the appellee’s answer, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On November 22, 2010, the appellant, Tavaughn M. Crosell, pled 
guilty, with the assistance of defense counsel (hereinafter “Counsel”), to 
Manslaughter, Robbery in the First Degree, and Possession of a Firearm During 
the Commission of a Felony.  On July 1, 2011, the Superior Court sentenced 
Crosell to a total of thirty-five years at Level V suspended after twenty-five years 
for six months at Level IV and eighteen months at Level III. 
2 
 
(2) 
On August 8, 2011, Crosell, acting pro se, filed an untimely notice of 
appeal from the July 1, 2011 sentence.  A timely notice of appeal should have been 
filed on or before August 1, 2011.1 
(3) 
On August 17, 2011, the Clerk issued a notice directing that Crosell 
show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In response, 
Crosell contends that he relied upon Counsel to file a “motion for reconsideration 
of sentence,” which Counsel failed to do.  Crosell maintains that he should not be 
penalized due to [Counsel’s] failure to communicate.”  On September 15, 2011, at 
the direction of the Court, the appellee, State of Delaware, filed an answer to 
Crosell’s response. 
(4) 
“Time is a jurisdictional requirement.”2  In Delaware, the 
jurisdictional defect that is 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.”3  An untimely appeal in 
Delaware cannot be considered unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure 
to timely file a notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.4 
                                          
 
1 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days 
after a sentence is imposed in a direct appeal of a criminal conviction). 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 See Honaker v. State, 2006 WL 298165 (Del. Supr.) (quoting Riggs v. Riggs, 539 A.2d 163, 
164 (Del. 1988)). 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
(5) 
In this case, Crosell does not contend, and the record does not reflect, 
that the untimeliness of this appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.  The 
appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. 
(6) 
Nonetheless, under the unique circumstances of this case, when 
Counsel had a continuing obligation to appeal if that was Crosell’s desire, the State 
suggests and we agree that this matter should be remanded to the Superior Court to 
determine if Crosell consulted with Counsel and expressed a desire to appeal.5  The 
Court further agrees that if the Superior Court determines that Crosell told Counsel 
that he wanted to appeal, the Superior Court should vacate its July 1, 2011 
sentencing order and resentence Crosell, with the assistance of Counsel, so that a 
timely appeal might be filed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED as untimely filed.  This matter is 
REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance with this 
Order.  Jurisdiction is not retained.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                          
 
5 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(a) (providing for continuing obligation of and representation by 
counsel on appeal).