Case Title: Christmas v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 106, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-04-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
KASON CHRISTMAS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 106, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1012003877 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 25, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 3, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 3rd day of April 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 11, 2012, the Court received appellant’s notice of appeal 
from a Superior Court order dated January 31, 2013.  Pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before March 4, 
2012. 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to appellant directing him to 
show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.1  Appellant filed a 
response to the notice to show cause on March 25, 2013.  He asserts that he is a 
prisoner and was not able to get to the prison law library to obtain the necessary 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2013). 
 
 
-2-
forms until after the filing deadline.  He requests that his untimely filing be 
excused because it was unintentional.   
(3) 
In Delaware, time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  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  An appellant’s pro se or incarcerated status does 
not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 
Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file 
a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal 
cannot be considered.5 
(4) 
Prison personnel are not 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, this 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 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 482 (Del. 2012). 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).