Case Title: Domingo v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 284, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-09-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PETER DOMINGO, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 284, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. I.D. No. 2002017428 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: September 8, 2022 
Decided: 
September 12, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
A Superior Court jury found the appellant, Peter Domingo, guilty of 
first-degree assault, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a 
felony, possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, and first-degree 
burglary.  On July 8, 2022, the Superior Court sentenced Domingo to a total of thirty-
three years of incarceration, suspended after thirteen years for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  Domingo was represented by counsel at trial and sentencing. 
 
2 
(2) 
On August 11, 2022, Domingo filed a pro se direct appeal.  A timely 
notice of appeal was due on or before August 8, 2022.1  The Senior Court Clerk of 
this Court issued a notice directing Domingo to show cause why this appeal should 
not be dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6. 
(3) 
In response, Domingo’s counsel filed a letter stating that the failure to 
file a timely appeal was counsel’s mistake, as a result of miscommunication 
concerning Domingo’s desire to appeal.  At the Court’s request, the State also filed 
a response.  The State suggests that, in the interests of justice, the matter should be 
remanded to the Superior Court with directions to vacate and reimpose Domingo’s 
sentence. 
(4) 
We agree that the interests of justice favor a remand to the Superior 
Court for resentencing.2  Upon remand, the Superior Court shall reimpose its July 8, 
2022, sentence so that Domingo’s counsel will have the opportunity to file a timely 
appeal.3 
 
1 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6(a)(iii); id. R. 11(a). 
2 Bowers v. State, 2022 WL 2942081 (Del. July 25, 2022); Amaro v. State, 2013 WL 1087644 
(Del. Mar. 13, 2013). 
3 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 26(a) (setting forth continuing obligations of trial counsel on appeal). 
 
3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that the matter is REMANDED to 
the Superior Court for further action in accordance with this order.  Jurisdiction is 
not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice