IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ROBERT PIPER,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 164, 2024

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID Nos. 2209003503 (S)

§ 2209003513 (S)

§ 2209003519 (S)

§ 2209006351 (S)

Submitted: August 2, 2024

Decided: August 13, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 

to the Court that:

(1) The defendant below-appellant, Robert Piper, filed this appeal from a 

Superior Court order dismissing his appeals from violation-of-probation (“VOP”) 

sentences imposed in the Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons discussed below, 

we reverse the Superior Court’s judgment. 

(2) On December 13, 2023, the Court of Common Pleas found that Piper 

had violated his probation in four separate cases. The Court of Common Pleas 

sentenced Piper for the VOPs as follows: (i) for shoplifting in Cr. ID No. 220903503, 

one year of Level V incarceration, suspended after ninety days; (ii) for shoplifting 
2

in Cr. ID No. 220903513, one year of Level V incarceration, suspended after ninety 

days; (iii) for shoplifting in Cr. ID No. 2209003519, one year of Level V 

incarceration, suspended after ninety days; and (iv) for shoplifting in Cr. ID No. 

2209006351, one year of Level V incarceration, suspended after ninety days.

(3) According to the dockets for the cases in the Court of Common Pleas, 

Piper filed a document request and affidavit in support of an application to proceed 

in forma pauperis on December 22, 2023. A Court of Common Pleas judge granted 

the application on December 27, 2023. The dockets next show a document received 

from Piper on February 12, 2024. In the document (which was captioned in the 

Superior Court), Piper inquired about the status of his appeals, stating he had 

received a status sheet showing the granting of his application to proceed in forma 

pauperis but not showing anything for his appeals. In a letter dated February 15, 

2024, the Court of Common Pleas told Piper that neither the Court of Common Pleas 

nor the Superior Court had received any appeals from him. 

(4) According to the docket for the cases in the Superior Court, Piper filed 

a notice of appeal from the December 13, 2023 VOP sentences on March 6, 2024. 

The Superior Court dismissed the appeals because they were filed more than fifteen 

days after the Court of Common Pleas had sentenced Piper for his VOPs. This 

appeal followed. 
3

(5) On appeal, Piper contends that he mailed his notice of appeal to the 

Superior Court on December 18, 2023. He includes a prison mail log showing that, 

on December 18, 2023, he mailed documents to the Sussex County Courthouse 

Prothonotary. In denying the State’s motion to affirm, the Court directed the State 

to address in its answering brief Piper’s contention that the prison mail log showed 

he had mailed a timely notice of appeal to the Sussex County Prothonotary. 

(6) The State admits in its answering brief that the Superior Court received 

Piper’s notice of appeal from the December 13, 2023 VOP sentences on December 

22, 2023. The State includes a copy of this notice of appeal, which is captioned in 

the Superior Court and marked with a December 22, 2023 Sussex County 

Prothonotary stamp, in its appendix. Although the notice of appeal contained the 

case numbers for the Court of Common Pleas cases, the notice was mistakenly 

entered and docketed in different cases that Piper already had pending in the Superior 

Court. Attributing this mistake to court-related personnel, the State avers that the 

Superior Court erred in dismissing Piper’s appeals as untimely.

(7) We agree that Piper’s appeals to the Superior Court should not have 

been dismissed as untimely. Under Superior Court Criminal Rule 39(a), Piper had 

to file his appeals within fifteen days from the date of his VOP sentences in the Court 

of Common Pleas. Piper was sentenced for his VOPs on December 13, 2023 so he 

had until December 28, 2023 to submit a timely appeal to the Superior Court. As 
4

demonstrated by the State, the Superior Court received Piper’s notice of appeal on 

December 22, 2023. The appeals were therefore timely and should not have been 

dismissed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is REVERSED. The matter is REMANDED for the Superior Court to 

consider Piper’s appeals from the Court of Common Pleas. Jurisdiction is not 

retained.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice