IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JONATHAN M. WONNUM, §
§ No. 164, 2022
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§ Court Below–Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 30206697DI
§
Appellee. §
Submitted: June 9, 2022
Decided: July 8, 2022
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it
appears to the Court that:
(1) On May 13, 2022, the appellant, Jonathan Wonnum, filed a notice of
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated March 7, 2022 and docketed on March
15, 2022, denying his third motion for postconviction relief. A timely notice of
appeal was due on or before April 14, 2022.1 The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice
directing Wonnum to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as
untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6.
1
See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed “[w]ithin 30 after
entry upon the docket of a judgment or order in any proceeding for postconviction relief”).
(2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Wonnum states that he
never received a copy of the Superior Court order denying his motion for
postconviction relief and that he only received notice that the court had denied his
motion when he received a copy of the court’s docket on April 21, 2022. At the
request of the Court, the State also filed a response to the notice to show cause. The
State acknowledges that Wonnum’s prison mail log reflects that he did not receive
notice of the Superior Court’s order dismissing his motion for postconviction relief
until April 21, 2022 and, therefore, the record supports a finding that Wonnum’s
untimely filing of the notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. The
State suggests that the Court therefore discharge the notice to show cause.
(3) We agree that the prison mail log supports Wonnum’s claim that his
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. And
we note that, after filing the notice of appeal, Wonnum wrote to the Court and
requested a copy of the Superior Court’s order. Because it appears that Wonnum
did not have a copy of the Superior Court’s order—only notice of the Superior
Court’s denial of the motion—when he filed the notice of appeal, we conclude that
the proper course of action is to remand this matter to the Superior Court. Upon
remand, the Superior Court shall re-issue the March 7, 2022 order, thereby enabling
Wonnum to file a timely notice of appeal and appropriately tailor his arguments on
appeal.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is
REMANDED to the Superior Court for further action in accordance with this Order.
Jurisdiction is not retained.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
Justice
3