229 A.3d 486
D.C.2020Background
- Two consolidated appeals: Deloatch (civil divorce) and Perez (criminal). Both filed notices of appeal years after Rule 4 deadlines.
- Deloatch: divorce judgment entered May 2015; motion to vacate denied March 30, 2016; notice of appeal filed January 2020 (nearly four years late under D.C. App. R. 4(a)).
- Perez: pleaded guilty (judgment November 2011); motion to withdraw plea denied August 31, 2012; notice of appeal filed February 2020 (more than seven years late under D.C. App. R. 4(b)).
- No appellee moved to dismiss either appeal as untimely; the court issued show-cause orders. Deloatch did not respond; Perez responded but gave no adequate explanation for the multi-year delay.
- The court confronted (1) whether Rule 4 time limits are jurisdictional and (2) whether it may or should dismiss untimely appeals sua sponte where appellees have not objected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4(a) and 4(b) time limits are jurisdictional | Appellants implicitly urged the court to hear late appeals (i.e., time limits not a bar to jurisdiction) | Prior D.C. precedent treated Rule 4 deadlines as mandatory and jurisdictional | Rule 4 time limits are non-jurisdictional claim-processing rules subject to forfeiture (Kontrick/Hamer framework) |
| Who must raise an untimely-appeal objection | Appellants relied on court to consider appeals despite delay | Appellees (or court) could invoke Rule 4; historically the court policed timeliness sua sponte | Generally appellees must properly invoke the claim-processing rule; court may but ordinarily should not raise timeliness sua sponte |
| Whether to dismiss these two appeals sua sponte | Appellants proffered inadequate or untimely explanations (Perez asserted an unlitigated counsel-failure claim) | No appellees moved to dismiss; court had discretion under D.C. App. R. 13(a) to dismiss sua sponte | Exercising discretion, the court dismissed both appeals as untimely given substantial delays (nearly 4 years and over 7 years) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (court-made procedural rules are generally non-jurisdictional)
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (time limits in court rules are mandatory claim-processing rules subject to forfeiture)
- Frain v. District of Columbia, 572 A.2d 447 (D.C. 1990) (prior D.C. precedent treating Rule 4(a) as jurisdictional)
- McKnight v. United States, 764 A.2d 240 (D.C. 2000) (prior D.C. precedent treating Rule 4(b) as jurisdictional)
- United States v. Gaytan-Garza, 652 F.3d 680 (6th Cir. 2011) (sua sponte dismissal appropriate for very long delay)
- United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 2017) (authority to dismiss untimely criminal appeals sua sponte but use sparingly)
- United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740 (10th Cir. 2008) (declined sua sponte dismissal for a one-day late appeal)
- Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257 (1978) (earlier Supreme Court characterization of Rule 4 as "mandatory and jurisdictional")
- United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220 (1960) (historical Supreme Court language treating filing deadlines as jurisdictional)
- Smith v. United States, 984 A.3d 196 (D.C. 2009) (recognized some court-made deadlines are non-jurisdictional in light of intervening Supreme Court precedent)
- Mathis v. District of Columbia Hous. Auth., 124 A.3d 1089 (D.C. 2015) (D.C. App. R. deadline held non-jurisdictional)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (appellate courts rely on parties to frame issues; courts should not act as self-directed legal investigators)