Case Title: Arguells v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 326, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICARDO D. ARGUELLS, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 326, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 05M-09-106 
§  Cr. ID 0308013535 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 26, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 14, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 14th day of August 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 27, 2006, the Court received Ricardo Arguells’ 
(Arguells) notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated October 26, 
2005, which denied Arguells’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  Pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed 
on or before November 28, 2005. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), directing Arguells to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2-
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Arguells filed a response to the notice to show 
cause on July 11, 2006.  He asserts that, shortly after he received the 
Superior Court’s order in 2005, he was moved into a different housing unit 
in the prison and his personal belongings, including his legal papers, were 
sent to his home.  He contends that his legal papers only came back into his 
possession in June 2006. He asks the Court to excuse his untimely filing. 
(3) 
The State has filed a reply to Arguells’ response.  The State 
argues that time is a jurisdictional requirement2 and that a notice of appeal 
must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the 
applicable time period in order to be effective.3  Arguells’ pro se status does 
not excuse his failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements 
of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Because Arguells cannot demonstrate that the 
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.5 
(4) 
We agree. There is nothing in the record to reflect that 
Arguells’ failure to file a timely notice of appeal in this case is attributable to 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829(1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3-
court-related personnel.  Consequently, this case does not fall within the 
exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of 
appeal.  Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice