Case Title: Escobar-Arcos v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 343, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-08-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERTO ESCOBAR-ARCOS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 343, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 1606011302 (K)  
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 16, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 3, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
the Court concludes that: 
(1) 
On July 6, 2018, the appellant, Roberto Escobar-Arcos, filed a notice 
of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated and docketed on June 5, 2018, denying 
his first, untimely motion for postconviction relief from his guilty plea and sentence.  
Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a timely notice of appeal should have been filed 
on or before July 5, 2018.  The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Escobar-
Arcos to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed under 
Supreme Court Rule 6.  In his response to the notice to show cause, Escobar-Arcos 
2 
 
states that he could not go to the prison law library without an appeal deadline and 
he has had difficulty accessing the library by prison mail.   
(2) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  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.2  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to 
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3  
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.4   
(3) 
The record does not reflect that Escobar-Arcos’ failure to file a timely 
notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.  Prison personnel are not 
court-related personnel.5  Contrary to Escobar-Arcos’ contentions, he did have an 
appeal deadline—thirty days from the docketing of the order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief.6  In addition, the library policy Escobar-Arcos attaches to his 
motion states that prisoners with appeal deadlines are given priority for scheduling 
appointments, not that prisoners without appeal deadlines are precluded from 
scheduling library appointments.  This case does not fall within the exception to the 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
5 Kreider v. State, 2012 WL 2979015, at *1 (Del. July 20, 2012). 
6 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv). 
3 
 
general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  This appeal must 
be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice