Case Title: Smith v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 202, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-08-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
WALTER L. SMITH,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 202, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for Sussex County  
   Cr. ID No. 0105019765 
                      
 
Submitted: June 14, 2004  
   Decided: August 13, 2004    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 13th day of August 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On May 13, 2004, the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal 
from the Superior Court’s April 7, 2004 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal 
should have been filed on or before May 7, 2004.1   
 
(2) 
On May 13, 2004, 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 June 1, 2004.  The Clerk then directed the State to file an answer.   
                                                 
1 The notice of appeal bears the date of May 5, 2004.   
 
 
-2-
 
(3) 
The appellant states that Lieutenant Boone of the Delaware 
Correctional Center verbally acknowledged to him and to the Clerk that inmate 
letters were not mailed between the dates of May 1 and May 8, 2004, and this 
explains why his notice of appeal was not filed in a timely manner.  Even assuming 
the validity of these assertions, however, the appellant himself is responsible for 
failing to give his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing until May 5, 2004, 
only two days before it was due to be filed in this Court.2   
 
(4) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3  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.4  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.5   
 
(5) 
There is nothing in this record that reflects 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 
                                                 
2 We infer from the record that Smith’s notice of appeal was mailed by prison officials on May 9, 
2004.  It was not delivered to the Clerk’s Office, however, until May 13, 2004.  Under these 
circumstances, it is questionable whether the notice of appeal would have reached the Clerk’s 
Office in a timely manner even if it had been mailed by prison officials on May 5, 2004. 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3-
rule mandating the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  Thus, the Court concludes 
that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 
6(a) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice