Case Title: Warrington v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 372, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-10-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HAROLD WARRINGTON, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 372, 2023 
§   
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No.  2203005115 (K)  
§   
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 19, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
October 20, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 4, 2023, the appellant, Harold Warrington, filed a notice of 
appeal from a March 1, 2023 Superior Court sentencing order.  Under Supreme 
Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal was due on or before March 31, 2023.1   
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Warrington to show 
cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In his response to 
the notice to show cause, Warrington argues the merits of his appeal and raises 
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 
2 
 
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims but does not explain why he did not file a 
timely notice of appeal. 
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3  An 
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply strictly with the 
jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Unless an appellant can 
demonstrate that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.5 
(4) 
The record does not reflect that Warrington’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, and this appeal must therefore be dismissed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal be DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 See Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 2012). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).