Case Title: Benson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 130, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

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

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHANNON BENSON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 130, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1201015709 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: April 1, 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 19, 2013, the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal 
from the Superior Court’s February 15, 2013 violation of probation (“VOP”) 
sentencing order.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from 
the Superior Court’s order should have been filed on or before March 18, 2013. 
 
(2) 
On March 20, 2013, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed his response to the notice to show 
cause on April 1, 2013.  In the response, the appellant states that he sent his notice of 
appeal to the Court within the required time period. 
 
2
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (ii), a notice of appeal from a VOP sentencing 
order must be filed within 30 days of the date the sentence is imposed.  Time is a 
jurisdictional requirement.1  A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the 
Clerk of the Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.2  An 
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the 
jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.3  Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the 
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his 
appeal may not be considered.4 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the appellant’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.  Thus, the Court concludes 
that this appeal must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).