Soriano-Carela v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PEDRO SORIANO-CARELA, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 31, 2020 Court Below–Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 1707008057 (N) Submitted: March 2, 2020 Decided: March 5, 2020 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. ORDER Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that: (1) On January 23, 2020, the Court received Pedro Soriano-Carela’s notice of appeal from a December 16, 2019 Superior Court order denying his motion for sentence modification. To be timely filed, the notice of appeal had to be received by the Clerk or a Deputy Clerk in any county on or before January 15, 2020.1 1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a). (2) A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.2 The jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of appeal cannot be excused unless the appellant can demonstrate that the delay in filing is attributable to court-related personnel.3 (3) On January 24, 2020, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Soriano-Carela to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Soriano-Carela filed a response to the notice to show cause, stating that he had an appointment at the law library and filled out the paperwork necessary to file a notice of appeal. However, Soriano-Carela maintains that he did not receive his inmate account statement—which he needed in order to complete his motion to proceed in forma pauperis—from the Department of Correction business office until January 17, 2020. (4) In this case, the Court directed the State to respond to Soriano-Carela’s response to the notice to show cause. The State responded, noting that SorianoCarela’s prison mail log indicates that he received mail from the Superior Court— presumably, the Superior Court’s December 16, 2019 order—on December 23, 2019, and, therefore, Soriano-Carela had more than three weeks to file a timely notice of appeal in this Court. 2 3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2 (5) We conclude that Soriano-Carela’s response to the notice to show cause does not provide a basis for excusing his untimely filing of the notice of appeal. A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.4 Prison personnel, including employees of the business office, are not court-related personnel.5 Because the record does not reflect that Soriano-Carela’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice 4 5 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). Roy v. State, 2014 WL 2957264, at *1 (Del. June 27, 2014). 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.
