Dickson v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE GREGORY C. DICKSON, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 334, 2009 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0808020674 Submitted: June 16, 2009 Decided: July 7, 2009 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices ORDER This 7th day of July 2009, upon consideration of the State of Delaware s request for remand, it appears to the Court that: (1) On October 27, 2008, the defendant-appellant, Gregory C. Dickson, pleaded guilty to one count of Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. Dickson was sentenced on April 24, 2009. While the sentencing order appears to have been docketed on April 24, 2009, there is a notation that states the order was signed and filed 05/01/09. Any appeal from Dickson s convictions and sentences should, therefore, have been filed, at the very least, on or before June 1, 2009.1 However, Dickson did not file his pro se appeal in this Court until June 9, 2009. (2) On June 9, 2009, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to Dickson to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. Dickson filed responses to the notice to show cause on June 16 and June 19, 2009. In the responses, Dickson states that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal was not his fault. (3) The Court requested the State to reply to Dickson s response to the notice to show cause. In its reply, the State urges that, in these circumstances, the matter should be remanded to the Superior Court for a determination of whether Dickson instructed his attorney to file an appeal.2 If the Superior Court determines that Dickson instructed his attorney to file an appeal, then its sentencing order should be vacated and Dickson resentenced, with the assistance of counsel, so that a timely appeal may be filed.3 (4) In the interest of justice, we conclude that this matter should be remanded to the Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing and further proceedings in accordance with this Order. 1 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (ii). Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 485 (2000). 3 Id. at 478. 2 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance herewith. Jurisdiction is not retained. BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
