Title: Clark v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 292, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: January 16, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYRONE CLARK, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 292, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 1907004115 (K) 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 8, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
January 16, 2024 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 17, 2023, the appellant, Tyrone Clark, filed this appeal from 
the Superior Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief under 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The Superior Court denied the motion as untimely 
because Clark filed it more than a year after this Court issued the mandate in Clark’s 
unsuccessful appeal of his criminal convictions in Clark v. State, No. 93, 2021.     
(2) 
On August 30, 2023, Clark filed a motion in this appeal to reissue the 
mandate in Clark v. State, No. 93, 2021.  He filed the same motion in Clark v. State, 
No. 93, 2021.    Clark argued that reissuance of the mandate was appropriate because 
it would allow him to file a timely motion for postconviction relief.  He contended 
that he was unable to file a timely postconviction motion in the first instance because 
2 
 
his counsel did not send him this Court’s decision affirming his convictions on direct 
appeal, which led to the issuance of the mandate triggering the one-year time period 
for him to file a timely motion for postconviction relief, and that he did not learn of 
the decision until after the one-year time period had expired.  The State did not 
oppose reissuance of the mandate.  The Court granted Clark’s motion, concluding 
that “reissuance of the mandate is appropriate so that Clark has the opportunity to 
file a timely motion for postconviction relief under Rule 61.”1  The mandate reissued 
in Clark v. State, No. 93, 2021.        
(3) 
In this appeal, the Clerk’s Office issued a notice, by certified mail, 
directing Clark to show why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot in light of 
the reissued mandate in Clark v. State, No. 93, 2021.  After the certified receipt was 
returned with no signature or date, the Clerk’s Office reissued the notice to show 
cause, by certified mail, on November 16, 2023.  The notice to show cause was 
delivered, as evidenced by the certified return receipt filed with the Court, by 
November 27, 2023.     
(4) 
A timely response to the notice to show cause was due on or before 
December 7, 2023.  To date, the appellant has not responded to the notice to show 
cause.  Dismissal of this appeal is therefore deemed unopposed. 
 
1 Clark v. State, Order ¶ 7 (Del. Oct. 23, 2023). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED 
under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b).    
BY THE COURT: 
Abigail M. LeGrow 
 
Justice