Case Title: Alford v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 304, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROY L. ALFORD, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 304, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 92K05709DI 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 19, 2013 
Decided:  July 8, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of July 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 11, 2013, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated May 1, 2013, which denied his 
second motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, 
a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before May 31, 2013. 
(2) 
The Senior Court 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 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 
 
 
-2-
to show cause on June 19, 2013.  He requests that his appeal not be 
dismissed based on exigent circumstances.  He contends that he suffered a 
heart attack and had open heart surgery in February 2013 and has been weak 
and fatigued since that time, which contributed to his inability to file his 
appeal in a timely manner.  He also suggests his untimely filing was due to 
his inability to receive requested appointments in the prison law library.  
(3) 
We find no merit to these arguments.  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 incarcerated and/or 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 
(4) 
In this case, there is no evidence that appellant’s untimely filing 
is attributable to court-related personnel.  Accordingly, this case does fall 
within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a 
                                                 
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). 
 
 
-3-
notice of 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/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice