Case Title: Fitzgerald v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 117, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JASON FITZGERALD, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
          Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 117, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2007010286 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 14, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 21, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s 
response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 6, 2022, the appellant, Jason Fitzgerald, filed a notice of 
appeal from his criminal conviction and sentence for second-degree assault.  The 
Superior Court sentenced Fitzgerald on November 8, 2021.  Under Supreme Court 
Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal was due on or before December 8, 2021.1 
(2) 
On April 7, 2022, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing 
Fitzgerald to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 
2 
 
In his response to the notice to show cause, Fitzgerald alleges that he failed to file a 
timely notice of appeal due to, among other things, court delays attributable to the 
COVID-19 pandemic and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.   
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3  An 
appellant’s prisoner pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply strictly with 
the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Unless an appellant can 
demonstrate that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.5   
(4) 
The record does not reflect that Fitzgerald’s failure to file a timely 
notice of appeal in this case is attributable to 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, and this appeal must be dismissed.  To the extent 
that Fitzgerald alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective, he may pursue those 
claims in the Superior Court by filing a timely motion for postconviction relief under 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 
 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 See Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 2012). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.  
  
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
           Chief Justice