Case Title: Fleming v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 144, 2024

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEROY FLEMING, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 144, 2024 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. I.D. No. 2209010479 (K) 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: May 15, 2024 
Decided: 
May 24, 2024 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 28, 2024, the appellant, Leroy Fleming, pleaded guilty to 
possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, and the Superior Court 
sentenced him that same day.  On April 8, 2024, Fleming filed this appeal.  Under 
Supreme Court Rules 6(a)(iii) and 11, a timely notice of appeal would have been 
filed on or before April 1, 2024.    
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Fleming to show cause 
why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In response to the notice 
 
2 
to show cause, Fleming states that he is not educated in the law, has limited access 
to the law library, and was unaware of the filing deadline.  
(3) 
The appellate jurisdiction of this Court rests upon perfecting an appeal 
within the applicable time period.1  A notice of appeal must be received by the Court 
within the applicable time period to be effective.2  An appellant’s self-represented, 
incarcerated status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional 
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3  An untimely appeal cannot be considered 
unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal 
is attributable to court-related personnel.4   
(4) 
Fleming does not contend that the untimeliness of this appeal is 
attributable to court-related personnel.   He also does not indicate that he told his 
counsel that he desired to appeal.5  In any event, the “jurisdictional defect created by 
the untimely filing of a notice of appeal cannot be excused in the absence of unusual 
circumstances which are not attributable to the appellant or the appellant’s 
 
1 Heller v. State, 147 A.3d 749, 2016 WL 4699158, at *1 (Del. Sept. 7, 2016) (TABLE) (citing 
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989)). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 E.g., Harrison v. State, 307 A.3d 327, 2023 WL 6854781, at *1 (Del. Oct. 17, 2023) (TABLE); 
see also Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 481–82 (Del. 2012) (dismissing prisoner’s pro se direct 
appeal, filed one day late, as untimely). 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
5 See Supr. Ct. R. 26(a)(ii) (requiring criminal defense counsel to docket a direct appeal if “the 
client desires to appeal, whether or not the appeal appears meritorious”); see also Heller, 2016 WL 
4699158 (dismissing untimely direct appeal despite the appellant’s assertion in response to the 
notice to show cause that counsel had told him immediately after sentencing that counsel would 
file a notice of appeal). 
 
3 
attorney.”6  Because the untimeliness of this appeal is not attributable to court-
related personnel, the appeal must be dismissed.7 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED under 
Supreme Court Rule 29(b).  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
 
 
6 Dixon v. State, 223 A.3d 883, 2019 WL 6769679, at *1 (Del. Dec. 11, 2019) (TABLE) 
(quotations omitted). 
7 Harrison, 2023 WL 6854781, at *1.