Smith v. State
47 A.3d 481
| Del. | 2012Background
- Smith, a pro se prisoner, pled guilty on Oct. 27, 2011 to rape in the third degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, and was sentenced on Jan. 27, 2012.
- Smith’s notice of appeal was received by the Delaware Supreme Court on Feb. 28, 2012, one day after the 30-day deadline; filing was postmarked Feb. 27, 2012 and the certificate of service was dated Feb. 21, 2012.
- The Court directed Smith to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely and directed the State to address whether to re-examine Carr v. State and adopt a prison mailbox rule under Houston v. Lack.
- The State and amicus urged adopting the mailbox rule; the State had previously opposed it in Hickman v. State, and the Court had declined to adopt it there.
- Delaware law provides a jurisdictional 30-day time limit for appeals; filing by mail is not complete until received by the Clerk, and perfection within the statutory period is required for jurisdiction.
- The Court ultimately dismissed Smith’s appeal as untimely and referred the question of adopting a prison mailbox rule to the Rules Committee to consider procedure for this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prison mailbox rule should apply to timing of filing | Smith: adopt mailbox rule to treat delivery to prison authorities as filing date. | State: reject mailbox rule; timing remains strict under Del. code and rules. | Mailbox rule not adopted; timeliness is jurisdictional |
| Whether Bey tolling or equitable tolling applies to Smith’s untimely appeal | Smith could obtain tolling for court-related delays. | State: tolling is inconsistent with unambiguous statutory language. | No tolling; strict jurisdictional deadline applies |
| Whether the court should re-examine Carr v. State to adopt Houston-like mailbox rule | Smith seeks reconsideration of Carr to adopt mailbox rule. | State: maintain Carr; not adopt mailbox rule; jurisdictional view intact. | Declined to re-examine Carr; referred to Rules Committee for procedural rule consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778 (Del. 1989) (refusal to adopt Houston mailbox rule for Delaware procedures)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (S. Ct. 1988) (prison mailbox rule for pro se notices of appeal)
- State ex rel. Nichols v. Litscher, 247 Wis.2d 1013 (Wis. 2001) (tolling approach to confined petition filings)
- Hallum v. Commonwealth, 347 S.W.3d 59 (Ky. 2011) (prison mailbox rule adopted for criminal appeals in Kentucky)
- Robertson v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 789 (Ky. 2005) (prior influence on courtroom timing and filing rules)