Court Opinion

ID: 9958330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 21:02:47.291435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:12.421504
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MALIK NASIR,                                    :
                                                :        C.A. No.: K16M-03-005 JJC
                        PETITIONER,             :
                                                :
                 v.                             :
                                                :
STATE OF DELAWARE,                              :
                                                :
                        RESPONDENT.             :

                                Submitted: February 27, 2024
                                Decided: April 8, 2024

                                            ORDER

         On this 8th day of April 2024, having considered Petitioner Malik Nasir’s
motion seeking an enlargement of time to file an appeal of a commissioner’s case-
dispositive order (the “Order”), and the State’s response, it appears that:
         1.      A commissioner of this Court held a trial regarding Mr. Nasir’s petition
for return of $5,000 and miscellaneous jewelry seized during his arrest for drug
crimes. He seeks reconsideration of the Order denying his petition for return of
property.      Superior Court Civil Rule 132(a)(4) required Mr. Nasir to appeal the
Order to a judge of the Superior Court within ten days.           After Mr. Nasir received
the Order, he incorrectly attempted to appeal the decision directly to the Delaware
Supreme Court.
         2.      The Supreme Court later dismissed his appeal because it lacks
jurisdiction to hear an appeal taken directly from the order of a Superior Court
commissioner.1 While Mr. Nasir’s appeal awaited dismissal and his case remained

1
    Nasir v. State, 2024 WL 54040, at *1 (Del. Feb. 9, 2024).
in the Supreme Court, he filed a motion in the Superior Court seeking an enlargement
of time to permit him to file a motion for reconsideration.2               The Court deferred
decision on that motion until the Clerk of the Supreme Court returned the mandate
that included the Supreme Court’ Order of dismissal.
         3.     Although Mr. Nasir filed his appeal with the Supreme Court on the tenth
day following the filing of the Order, he did not meet the time requirement set by
Rule 132(a)(4)(ii) because he filed it in the wrong court.             Accordingly, absent an
enlargement of the ten-day period to appeal to a judge of the Superior Court based
upon good cause, Mr. Nasir’s appeal must be rejected as untimely.3
         4.     In the State’s response, the State opposes Mr. Nasir’s appeal on
    substantive grounds but does not oppose granting his motion for enlargement of
    time. Here, the Court does not find persuasive Mr. Nasir’s argument that a clerk in
    the Prothonotary’s Office and the Supreme Court gave him incorrect advice that
    caused him to file in the wrong court. Nevertheless, Mr. Nasir is a self-represented
    litigant. Under the circumstances, his timely filing, albeit in the incorrect court,
    should not bar his ability to advance his substantive claims. Accordingly, there is
    good cause to grant his request to enlarge the time necessary to consider his appeal
    from the Commissioner’s order.
         5.     As to the merits of Mr. Nasir’s motion, he identifies only one
    cognizable exception to the Commissioner’s recommendations and findings – the
    sufficiency of the evidence of record to uphold them.            At this stage, the Court
    cannot consider the merits of his appeal because he has not obtained a transcript of

2
 D.I. 47.
3
 See Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(c)( providing that “[t]he time periods specified in this Rule may be
shortened or enlarged for good cause, by a judge.”).
                                                2
    the proceedings as required by Rule 132.4             If Mr. Nasir seeks to prosecute his
    appeal, he shall obtain and file a copy of the transcript of the proceedings before the
    Commissioner within 90 days of the date of this Order. Both Mr. Nasir and the
    State have provided their written positions regarding Mr. Nasir’s exceptions. No
    further submissions will be appropriate. Upon his filing of the transcript, the Court
    will perform the required de novo review regarding his exception regarding
    sufficiency of the evidence and determine whether to accept, reject, or modify the
    Commissioner’s findings.
         WHEREFORE, Mr. Nasir’s motion for enlargement of time is GRANTED.
A decision on his appeal of the Commissioner’s Order, however, is deferred until he
files a copy of the transcript of the proceedings with the Court. At that point, the
matter will be deemed submitted for decision.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                       /s/ Jeffrey J Clark
                                                         Resident Judge

4
  See Id. at 132(a)(4)(iii) (requiring Ms. Nasir, as the party filing written objections, to “cause a
transcript of the proceedings, before the Commissioner to be prepared, served, and filed unless,
subject to the approval of a judge, all parties agree to a statement of facts.”).
                                                   3