Case Title: Perry v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 656, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-04-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTONIO D. PERRY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 656, 2009 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for  County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0804006166, 
§  0703006732, 0612004185, and 
§  0611005296 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 12, 20101 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 27, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of April 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On November 9, 2009, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court judgment, entered October 2, 2009, which 
sentenced appellant for a violation of probation (VOP).  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on 
or before November 2, 2009. 
                                                 
1 The Court had stayed further action in this case pending its consideration of a 
rule change regarding the extent of defense counsel’s continuing obligation on appeal to a 
client sentenced for a probation violation. See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(k) (effective April 12, 
2010).  
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.2  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on November 17, 2009.  He asserted that his appeal was late 
because he did not have adequate time to get into the prison law library in 
order to prepare his appeal.  He also asserted that, even if he had his appeal 
prepared in time, the notarial officer within the prison was not available to 
notarize his appeal.3   
(3) 
After the State filed its reply to appellant’s response, the Clerk 
of the Court directed the State, as well as Perry’s counsel in the VOP 
proceedings, to file memoranda setting forth their respective positions on the 
continuing obligation of court-appointed counsel to represent a defendant in 
a VOP appeal.  After careful consideration of the parties’ respective 
contentions on appeal, we have determined that this untimely appeal must be 
dismissed.   
(4) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.4  A notice of appeal must 
be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable 
                                                 
2Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
3 The Supreme Court Rules do not require that a notice of appeal be notarized.  
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
 
 
-3- 
time period in order to be effective.5  Appellant was informed of the thirty-
day limitations period yet failed to file his notice of appeal in a timely 
manner.  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply 
strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.6  
Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be 
considered.7 
(5) 
There is nothing in the record to reflect that 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 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/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
5Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
6Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
7Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).