Case Title: Jackson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 166, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-05-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
REGINALD JACKSON,
§
§
No. 166, 2001
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware, in
v.
§
and for New Castle County, in
§
Cr.A. Nos. IN98-01-0943 through
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
0945 and IN98-02-1830.
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Def. ID No. 9801007022
Submitted: April 23, 2001
Decided:
May 15, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 15th day of May 2001, upon consideration of the notice of appeal filed
by Reginald Jackson, the notice to show cause issued by the Clerk’s Office, and
Jackson’s response to the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On April 16, 2001, the Court received Jackson’s untimely notice
 of appeal from the Superior Court’s February 17, 1999 jury verdict wherein
Jackson was convicted of Attempted Murder in the First Degree, Robbery in the
First Degree and two counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission
of a Felony.  It appears that Jackson was sentenced on April 23, 1999 in that
1Jackson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 206, 1999, Steele, J., 2000 WL 1508601 (Sept. 13,
2000) (ORDER).
2Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
3Id.; 10 Del. C. § 147; Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii); 10(a).
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.
2
case, and that his direct appeal was affirmed by this Court on September 13,
2000.1   
(2)
On April 16, 2001, the Assistant Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to
 Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Jackson to show cause why the appeal
should not be dismissed as untimely.  In his response to the notice, Jackson states
that he intended to appeal from the Superior Court’s January 23, 2001, denial of
postconviction relief, but that he did not  know how to prepare a notice of appeal
and was without access to the prison law library.
(3)
“Time is a jurisdictional requirement.”2  A party seeking to invoke
the criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court from the denial of postconviction
relief must file the notice of appeal within the 30-day period of limitations fixed
by law.3  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly
with the jurisdictional appeal requirements.4  Unless an appellant can
5Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).
3
demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to
court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.5 
(4)
There in nothing in the record that reflects that Jackson’s  failure
to file a timely notice of appeal in this case is attributable to court-related
personnel.  Accordingly, this case does not fall within the exception to the
general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  The Court
concludes that the appeal must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey 
Chief Justice