Case Title: Williams v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 454, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
TIMOTHY P. WILLIAMS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 454, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0611021983 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  August 30, 2011 
Decided:  September 2, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 2nd day of September 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 24, 2011, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated February 8, 2011, which denied 
his motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a 
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before March 9, 2011. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2011). 
 
 
-2-
show cause on August 30, 2011.  His response does not address the 
timeliness of his appeal, but instead addresses the merits of his appeal.   
(3) 
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 status does not 
excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 
Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Unless the 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 In this case, there is no 
suggestion or evidence that court-related personnel were responsible for 
appellant’s untimely appeal.  Thus, the Court concludes that the within 
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/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).