Case Title: Proctor v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 120, 2002, 159, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONALD E. PROCTOR, JR., 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  Nos. 120/159, 2002 (Consolidated) 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below— Superior Court  
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. A. Nos. 98-11-0579 through 
§  -0581 
§  Cr. ID No. 9809013934 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 29, 2003 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 20, 2003  
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of May 2003, it appears to the Court that: 
(1)   On April 16, 2003, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to the appellant 
Ronald Proctor to show cause why these consolidated appeals should not be 
dismissed, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), for his failure to diligently 
prosecute the appeals by not filing his opening brief and appendix.  Proctor filed a 
response to the notice to show cause on April 29, 2003.   
(2) 
In his response, Proctor complains of retaliatory treatment within the 
prison and lack of access to requested materials.  Proctor’s response also includes a 
request for the appointment of counsel.  Proctor had counsel when his appeal was 
 
 
-2- 
filed.  At Proctor’s request, his appointed counsel was dismissed.  This Court granted 
Proctor’s petition to represent himself on October 1, 2002 with Proctor’s full 
knowledge of the hazards of self-representation. 
(3) 
Because Proctor knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to the 
assistance of counsel, it was his duty to diligently prosecute these consolidated 
appeals. Proctor’s brief and appendix have not been filed as required by Supreme 
Court Rule 15; therefore, this Court is unable to conduct a meaningful review.  In light 
of Proctor’s failure to diligently prosecute the appeals by not filing his opening brief 
and appendix, the dismissal of this action is appropriate pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b). 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the consolidated appeals are DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
Justice