Title: Mitchell v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 635, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 1, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL,  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 635, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID Nos. 0710005683 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
0711006220  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 12, 20101 
 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 1, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 1st day of June 2010, having considered the Clerk’s notice to show 
cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed, the appellant’s 
response to the notice, the appellee’s answer in support of dismissal, and the 
position of the appellant’s Superior Court counsel, it appears to the Court that: 
 
 
(1) 
On November 2, 2009, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s August 6, 2009 adjudication and sentencing of 
the appellant for a violation of probation (VOP).  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before September 7, 2009. 
                                          
 
1 The Court stayed further action in this case pending consideration of a rule change regarding a 
defense counsel’s continuing obligation on appeal to a client sentenced for a probation violation.  
See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(k) (effective April 12, 2010). 
 
2
 
(2) 
A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this 
Court within the applicable time period to be effective.2  The record reflects that 
the appellant was informed of the thirty-day appeal period but failed to file his 
notice of appeal in a timely manner.  This case does not fall within the exception to 
the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.3  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
                                          
 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).