Title: Johnson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 58, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 30, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DEMONTE JOHNSON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 58, 2023 
§ 
§ Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 1508020940A&B (N) 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 8, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
March 30, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 17, 2023, the appellant, Demonte Johnson, filed a notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated September 19, 2022 and docketed 
on September 20, 2022, granting his appointed counsel’s (“Appointed Counsel”) 
motion to withdraw and summarily dismissing his motion for postconviction relief 
under Superior Criminal Rule 61.  A timely notice of appeal should have been filed 
by October 20, 2022.   
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Johnson to show cause 
why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In his response to the 
2 
 
notice to show cause, Johnson states that, among other things, Appointed Counsel 
did not notify him that he had thirty days to file an appeal from the Superior Court’s 
order.  At the Court’s request, the State and Appointed Counsel responded to this 
statement. 
(3) 
As the State notes, when the Superior Court grants counsel’s motion to 
withdraw as it did here, Rule 61(e)(7)(ii) provides that: 
simultaneously with a denial of the movant’s motion for postconviction 
relief—counsel’s continuing duty is limited to: (A) notifying the 
movant in writing of the court’s ruling; and (B) advising the movant in 
writing of the right to appeal, the rules for filing a timely notice of 
appeal, and that it is the movant’s burden to file a notice of appeal if 
desired. 
 
The State provided a copy of Johnson’s legal mail log showing that he received mail 
from the Superior Court on September 22, 2022, three days after the Superior Court 
denied the motion for postconviction relief, and that he received mail from 
Appointed Counsel on October 3, 2022.  The State assumes that Appointed Counsel 
provided Johnson with the required notice. 
(4) 
Appointed Counsel advises that he mistakenly failed to advise Johnson 
that he needed to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the Superior Court’s 
September 19, 2022 order.  He further states that the legal mail Johnson received on 
3 
 
September 22, 20221 was not a letter providing legal advice, but a letter regarding 
the response to the postconviction motion that the State filed on September 15, 2022. 
In light of Appointed Counsel’s admitted failure to comply with the requirements of 
Rule 61(e)(7)(ii), we conclude that the interests of justice favor remanding this 
matter to the Superior Court for reissuance of its September 19, 2022 order so that 
Johnson may file a timely appeal.2 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS 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/ Gary F. Traynor 
Justice 
 
 
1 Because the mail log reflects that Johnson received mail from the Superior Court, not Appointed 
Counsel, on September 22, 2022, we assume that Appointed Counsel is referring to legal mail 
Johnson received from Appointed Counsel on October 3, 2022. 
2 See, e.g., Williams v. State, 2017 WL 5172252, at *1 (Del. Nov. 7, 2017) (remanding for Superior 
Court to reissue postconviction decision where postconviction counsel filed untimely appeal).