Case Title: Dickerson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 428, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-08-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES DICKERSON,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 428, 2010 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0606008609 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 6, 2010 
 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 10, 2010 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 10th day of August 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On July 13, 2010, the Court received James Dickerson’s pro se 
notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s June 8, 2010 adjudication and 
sentencing of him for a violation of probation.  Pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before July 8, 
2010.1 
 
(2) 
On July 26, 2010, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing that Dickerson show cause why the 
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In his response to the 
notice filed on August 6, 2010, Dickerson asserts that his appeal was 
                                          
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii).  The Court notes that the Superior Court docket reflects that 
Dickerson was informed in writing of the thirty-day appeal period by defense counsel of 
record.  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(k).  See docket at 33, State v. Dickerson, Del. Super., Cr. ID 
No. 0606008609 (June 8, 2010) (filing of “advice regarding appeal” form). 
 
2
untimely because the prison law library sent him the wrong form and did not 
respond to his request for assistance until it was too late. 
 
(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 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, the appeal cannot be considered.5 
 
(4) 
In this case, the Court has concluded that the appeal must be 
dismissed. Dickerson does not contend, and the record does not reflect, 
that his failure to timely file the notice of appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel.6  Thus, this case does not fall within the exception to the 
general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
                                          
 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.  
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
6 See Brown v. State, 2004 WL 1535757 (Del. Supr.) (dismissing untimely appeal after 
concluding that prison law library personnel are not court-related personnel).