Case Title: Graham v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 382, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-09-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS GRAHAM, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 382, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 02080112184 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 13, 2004 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 23, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of September 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 3, 2004, the Court received Thomas Graham=s 
notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated July 29, 2004, denying 
his motion for postconviction relief.  A timely notice of appeal should have 
been filed on or before August 30, 2004.1  Accordingly, the Clerk of the 
Court issued a notice to Graham pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) to 
show cause why his untimely appeal should not be dismissed.  
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 
 
 
-2-
(2) 
Graham filed a response to the notice to show cause.  He 
contends that he did not receive the Superior Court’s order until August 3, 
2004.  He argues that the 30-day limitations period should not have started 
to run until he actually received a copy of the order.   We disagree.  Supreme 
Court Rule 6(a)(iii) expressly provides that a notice of appeal in a 
postconviction proceeding must be filed with 30 days “after entry upon the 
docket” of the judgment. 2 
(3) 
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  An appellant=s pro se status does not 
excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 
Supreme Court Rule 6.5  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.6   
                                                 
2See also Salomon, Inc. v. Steuart Petro. Co., 567 A.2d 402 (Del. 1989); 
Giordano v. Marta, 723 A.2d 823 (Del. 1998). 
3Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
4Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
6Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3-
(4) 
There is nothing in this record to reflect that Graham=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.  Thus, the 
Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice