Case Title: Holbrook v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 158, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-05-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARCELLOUS A. HOLBROOK, 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 158, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
         
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
Def. ID No. 0610024386 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: April 2, 2009 
Decided: 
May 18, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 18th day of May 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In 2007, the appellant, Marcellous A. Holbrook, was tried, 
convicted and sentenced in the Superior Court on drug charges.  Holbrook, 
who was represented by counsel, did not file a direct appeal. 
(2) 
On March 24, 2009, the Court received Holbrook’s untimely 
notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order dated and docketed 
February 17, 2009, that denied Holbrook’s pro se motion for postconviction 
 
2 
relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should 
have been filed on or before March 19, 2009.1 
(3) 
On March 24, 2009, the Clerk issued a notice directing that 
Holbrook show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely 
filed.2  Holbrook filed a response to the notice to show cause on April 2, 
2009. 
(4) 
In his response to the notice, Holbrook asserts that his former 
defense counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal from the 
2007 conviction and sentencing.  Holbrook does not, however, address the 
untimeliness of his pro se appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of 
postconviction relief.  
(5) 
“Time is a jurisdictional requirement.”3  Under Delaware law, a 
notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk within the 
applicable time period to be effective.4  Unless an appellant can demonstrate 
that the failure to timely file a notice of appeal is attributable to court related 
personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.5 
                                          
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a). 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).   
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3 
(6) 
Holbrook does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that 
his failure to timely file a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s 
February 17, 2009 denial of postconviction relief is attributable to court 
related personnel.  This case does not fall within the exception to the general 
rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice