Case Title: Anderson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 214, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-07-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NATHANIEL ANDERSON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 214, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. I.D. No. 30306671 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: July 3, 2023 
Decided: 
July 13, 2023 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause, the appellant’s response, and 
the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 14, 2023, the appellant, Nathaniel Anderson, filed this appeal 
from a Superior Court order, dated and docketed on May 9, 2023, that summarily 
dismissed Anderson’s successive motion for postconviction relief.  Under Supreme 
Court Rules 6 and 11, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before 
June 8, 2023.   
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Anderson to show 
cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In response to the 
 
2 
notice to show cause, Anderson asked the Court to excuse the untimeliness of the 
appeal because his access to the prison law library was limited. 
(3) 
A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate 
jurisdiction.1  To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by the Court within 
the applicable time period.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.4  Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED under 
Supreme Court Rule 29(b).  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
 
 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 
3 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
4 See Whiteman v. State, 2021 WL 129945 (Del. Jan. 11, 2021) (holding that untimeliness of appeal 
was not attributable to court-related personnel where appellant argued that his efforts to file a 
notice of appeal were delayed because of prison restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, 
“including imposition of a fourteen-day quarantine period following his transfer from the 
violation-of-probation center and limited access to the law library”); Johnson v. State, 2006 WL 
197180 (Del. Jan. 24, 2006) (holding that untimeliness of appeal was not attributable to court-
related personnel where appellant argued that he had to wait several weeks before gaining access 
to the prison law library).