Title: Wonnum v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 164, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 8, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JONATHAN M. WONNUM, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§     No. 164, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§     Court Below–Superior Court 
§     of the State of Delaware 
§   
§     Cr. ID No. 30206697DI 
§     
§                                  
 
Submitted:  June 9, 2022 
Decided:  July 8, 2022 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 13, 2022, the appellant, Jonathan Wonnum, filed a notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated March 7, 2022 and docketed on March 
15, 2022, denying his third motion for postconviction relief.  A timely notice of 
appeal was due on or before April 14, 2022.1  The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice 
directing Wonnum to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as 
untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6. 
 
1 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed “[w]ithin 30 after 
entry upon the docket of a judgment or order in any proceeding for postconviction relief”). 
2 
 
(2) 
In his response to the notice to show cause, Wonnum states that he 
never received a copy of the Superior Court order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief and that he only received notice that the court had denied his 
motion when he received a copy of the court’s docket on April 21, 2022.  At the 
request of the Court, the State also filed a response to the notice to show cause.  The 
State acknowledges that Wonnum’s prison mail log reflects that he did not receive 
notice of the Superior Court’s order dismissing his motion for postconviction relief 
until April 21, 2022 and, therefore, the record supports a finding that Wonnum’s 
untimely filing of the notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.  The 
State suggests that the Court therefore discharge the notice to show cause. 
(3) 
We agree that the prison mail log supports Wonnum’s claim that his 
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.  And 
we note that, after filing the notice of appeal, Wonnum wrote to the Court and 
requested a copy of the Superior Court’s order.  Because it appears that Wonnum 
did not have a copy of the Superior Court’s order—only notice of the Superior 
Court’s denial of the motion—when he filed the notice of appeal, we conclude that 
the proper course of action is to remand this matter to the Superior Court.  Upon 
remand, the Superior Court shall re-issue the March 7, 2022 order, thereby enabling 
Wonnum to file a timely notice of appeal and appropriately tailor his arguments on 
appeal.  
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is 
REMANDED to the Superior Court for further action in accordance with this Order.  
Jurisdiction is not retained. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr.   
Justice