Title: Rogers v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICARDO M. ROGERS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 373, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 9807019431 
§                      3020776481 
§                       
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 15, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 23, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 23rd day of July 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On May 4, 2009, the Superior Court found that the defendant-
appellant, Ricardo M. Rogers, had committed a violation of probation 
(“VOP”) with respect to his sentences in Criminal Identification Numbers 
9807019431 and 3020776481.  The Superior Court re-sentenced Rogers on 
that same date.  Any appeal from Rogers’ VOP sentences should have been 
 
2 
filed on or before June 3, 2009.1  However, Rogers did not file his pro se 
appeal in this Court until June 29, 2009.2      
 
(2) 
On June 29, 2009, the Clerk issued a notice to Rogers to show 
cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  Rogers 
filed a response to the notice to show cause on July 7, 2009.  In the response, 
Rogers states that he asked his attorney to file an appeal, both orally and in 
writing, but that his attorney did not respond.  When he realized the deadline 
was approaching, he filed a notice of appeal, but erroneously filed it in the 
Superior Court.   
 
(3) 
The State filed a reply to Rogers’ 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 
Rogers instructed his attorney to file an appeal.3  If the Superior Court 
determines that Rogers instructed his attorney to file an appeal, then its May 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (ii). 
2 The record reflects that Rogers erroneously filed his notice of appeal previously in the 
Superior Court.  However, that appeal, which was filed on June 4, 2009, also was 
untimely. 
3 Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 485 (2000).  Although a probationer has no 
absolute right to counsel in VOP proceedings, counsel, at a minimum, has an ethical 
obligation to inform his client of the right to appeal a VOP sentence.  Harris v. State, Del. 
Supr., No. 451, 2006, Holland, J. (July 5, 2007). 
 
3 
4, 2009 sentencing order should be vacated and Rogers re-sentenced, with 
the assistance of counsel, so that a timely appeal may be filed.4    
 
(4) 
In the interest of justice, we conclude that this matter should be 
remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance with 
the above. 
 
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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
4 Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 478.