Case Title: Williams v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 501, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-11-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 501, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1301018630 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 30, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 5, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 5th day of November 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 23, 2013, the Court received appellant 
Christopher Williams’ notice of appeal from a Superior Court sentencing 
order, dated August 9, 2013, which sentenced him to twenty-five years at 
Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving twelve years in prison 
for decreasing levels of supervision.  The sentence was the result of 
Williams’ guilty plea in June 2013 to one count each of Child Abuse and 
Sexual Abuse of a Child by a Person in a Position of Trust.   
 
 
-2-
(2) 
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, Williams’ timely notice of 
appeal from his sentence should have been filed on or before September 9, 
2013.  The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) 
directing Williams to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as 
untimely filed.1  Williams filed a response to the notice to show cause on 
October 21, 2013.  The response offers no explanation for his untimely 
filing.  The Court also received a response from Williams’ defense counsel 
who indicated that Williams never advised counsel of his desire to appeal his 
sentence. 
 (3) 
At the Court’s direction, the State also filed an answer to 
Williams’ response to the notice to show cause.  The State argues that the 
30-day time limit to file a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement.  
While there is an exception to the 30-day time limit if the appellant can 
establish that the untimeliness of the appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, Williams has not made such a showing in this case. 
(4) 
We agree.  Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  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.3  An appellant’s pro se status 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
 
 
-3-
does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional 
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Unless an appellant can 
demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to 
court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.5  Williams has 
made no such showing in this case.  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/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice 
                                                 
4Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).