Title: Finn v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALFRED FINN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 152, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0801037592 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 13, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 3, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 3rd day of June 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 23, 2009, the Court received Alfred Finn’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court sentencing order entered on January 30, 2009.  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have 
been filed on or before March 1, 2009. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing Finn to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed 
as untimely filed.1  Finn filed a response to the notice to show cause on April 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
 
 
-2- 
6, 2009 asserting that his trial counsel never informed him of his right to 
appeal.  The Court directed trial counsel to file a response.  Trial counsel’s 
response indicates that, while he remembers discussing appeal rights with 
Finn’s family members, he does not recall specifically discussing the right to 
appeal with Finn.  The State has filed a reply to both Finn and his trial 
counsel.  The State suggests that, under the circumstances, this matter be 
remanded to the Superior Court for re-imposition of sentence in order to 
reset the clock on Finn’s time to appeal.  Finn objects to this procedure as 
unnecessary and because he believes it exposes him to a potential risk of an 
increased sentence.  
 
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of appeal must 
be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable 
time period in order to be effective.3  Unless the appellant can demonstrate 
that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.4  Trial counsel is not “court-
related personnel.”  Accordingly, the Court cannot, as Finn requests, simply 
discharge the notice of appeal and excuse his untimely filing. 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3- 
(4) 
We agree with the State that the proper course of action is to 
remand this matter to the Superior Court with directions to resentence Finn 
to permit him the opportunity to file a timely appeal.  Resentencing shall 
take place upon notice to the parties as soon as practicable but no later than 
30 days from the date of this order. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within 
matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for further action in 
accordance with this order.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice