Opinion
No. 474, 2011 Cr. ID No. 0906013967
02-09-2012
EDWARD SELBY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and New Castle County
ORDER
This 9th day of February 2012, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On August 31, 2011, the pro se appellant, Edward Selby, filed this appeal from his violation of probation conviction and sentencing on August 10, 2011 in the Superior Court. On October 25, 2011, the Clerk sent a brief schedule to Selby at the address provided by Selby in the notice of appeal (hereinafter "original address"). On November 2, 2011, the envelope enclosing Selby's brief schedule was returned marked "inmate released."
(2) On November 2, 2011, the Clerk sent the brief schedule to Selby at an address provided by the records department of the Department of Correction (hereinafter "updated address"). When Selby did not file the opening brief by the December 9, 2011 deadline, the Clerk issued a brief delinquency letter to Selby at the updated address.
(3) Selby did not file the opening brief and appendix within seven days of the brief delinquency letter as required. Therefore, on December 30, 2011, the Clerk sent a notice to Selby at the updated address directing that he show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file the opening brief.
See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b) (governing involuntary dismissal upon notice of the Court).
(4) On January 12, 2012, the brief delinquency notice was returned marked "attempted not known." On January 24, 2012, the notice to show cause was returned marked "attempted not known" and "unable to forward."
(5) "As a condition for a party appearing pro se, the party must designate a mailing address . . . for the receipt of all notices, papers and orders filed in the case." In this case, neither the original address nor the updated address is valid, and Selby has not provided the Clerk with a change of address. Under these circumstances, the dismissal of Selby's appeal is deemed to be unopposed.
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 12(c).
See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 3(b)(2)(b) (providing that a party is deemed to have consented to the termination of the case when the party fails to respond to the Court's notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed).
--------
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
Henry duPont Ridgely
Justice