Case Title: Hall v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 453, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-02-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MURRAY A. HALL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 453, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 2102000900 (K) 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 16, 2024 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 2, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.  
 
ORDER 
 
After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses to 
the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On December 6, 2023, the appellant, Murray A. Hall, filed a notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, docketed on November 3, 2023, adopting the 
Commissioner’s report and recommendation and denying Hall’s motion for 
postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  Under Supreme Court 
Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before December 4, 
2 
 
2023.1  The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Hall to show cause why this 
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.   
(2) 
In his responses to the notice to show cause, Hall states that he did not 
have access to his property, including legal materials, as a result of a disciplinary 
infraction and was unable to mail his notice of appeal until November 28, 2023.  The 
State contends that Hall could have filed his appeal before his disciplinary infraction, 
but instead waited three weeks from the date of Superior Court’s order to pursue an 
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 an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal 
is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.5   
(4) 
Hall has not shown that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is 
attributable to court-related personnel.  Prison personnel are not court-related 
 
1 Because the last day of the thirty-day appeal period fell on a Sunday, the time to appeal extended 
until Monday, December 4th.  Supr. Ct. R. 11(a).  
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
personnel.6  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.7   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths 
Justice 
 
 
6 Jones v. State, 2014 WL 1512805, at *1 (Del. Apr. 15, 2014). 
7 See, e.g., Lampkins v. State, 2018 1129631, at *1 (Del. Feb. 28, 2018) (dismissing untimely 
appeal where the defendant claimed that he had difficulty preparing paperwork because he was 
unable to use the law library and legal papers were confiscated as a result of disciplinary problems); 
Drummond v. State, 2006 WL 1519357, at *1 (Del. May 31, 2006) (dismissing untimely appeal 
where the defendant contended that he was unable to file a timely notice of appeal because he had 
been on solitary confinement for a disciplinary infraction and did not have access to his personal 
documents).