Case Title: Cropper v. State of Delawaer

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2021-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Cropper v. State of Delawaer  Download PDF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DWAYNE E. CROPPER, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 301, 2021 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. I.D. No. 9601010152 (N) Submitted: October 4, 2021 Decided: October 25, 2021 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. ORDER After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that: (1) On September 20, 2021, the appellant, Dwayne E. Cropper, filed this appeal from a Superior Court order dated August 3, 2021, and docketed on August 4, 2021, that denied his “Motion for Writ.” Under Supreme Court Rules 6 and 11, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before September 3, 2021. (2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Cropper to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. On September 27, 2021, the Court received the certified-mail receipt, confirming that the notice to show cause had been delivered. A response to the notice to show cause was therefore due on or before October 7, 2021. On October 4 and 5, 2021, Cropper filed an official Form A Notice of Appeal, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and a “Memorandum [in] Support of Writ.” In the memorandum, Cropper asserts various challenges to his conviction, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, an allegation that the Superior Court docket has been falsified, and a claim that the State failed to provide him with favorable evidence; none of the documents that he filed address the untimeliness of his appeal. (3) A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.1 A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.2 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.3 The failure to file a timely appeal in this case is not attributable to court-related personnel. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. 1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 3 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves Justice 3