Title: Chavis v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 299, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 6, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAKAI CHAVIS, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 299, 2019 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1806020079 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 5, 2019 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 6, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 12, 2019, counsel for the appellant, Dakai Chavis, filed a notice 
of appeal from a Superior Court sentence imposed on June 7, 2019.  A timely notice 
of appeal should have been filed on or before July 8, 2019.1  The Senior Court Clerk 
issued a notice directing Chavis’ counsel to show cause why this appeal should not 
be dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6. 
                                                 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (providing notice of appeal must be filed “[w]ithin 30 days after a 
sentence is imposed in a direct appeal of a criminal conviction”).  The thirtieth day after Chavis’ 
sentencing, July 7, 2019, was a Sunday.  Chavis’ notice of appeal therefore had to be filed on or 
before Monday, July 8, 2019. Del. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a). 
 
2 
(2) 
In his response to the notice to show cause, Chavis’ counsel states that 
he believed, incorrectly, that his notice of appeal was timely filed because July 12, 
2019, fell within 30 business days—as opposed to calendar days—from the date of 
Chavis’ sentencing. 
(3) 
The State was asked to respond to the position of Chavis’ counsel.  As 
the State recognizes, the failure of Chavis’ counsel does not fall within the exception 
to the general rule requiring the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  The State also 
recognizes that this failure, if not remedied, would leave the Court without 
jurisdiction to hear Chavis’ direct appeal.  Under these circumstances, the State 
recommends that the matter be remanded to the Superior Court with direction to 
vacate its June 7, 2019 sentence and to resentence Chavis.  Taking this course of 
action will allow Chavis to pursue a timely direct appeal. 
(4) 
We agree that the proper course of action is to remand this matter to the 
Superior Court.  Upon remand, the Superior Court shall vacate the June 7, 2019 
sentence and resentence Chavis. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY 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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
Justice