Case Title: Wilson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 24, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JUSTYN WILSON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 24, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  Cr. ID No. 0911019557 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 21, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
March 1, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 1st day of March 2016, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On January 13, 2016, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from an April 23, 2010 Superior Court sentencing order.  Under Supreme 
Court Rule 6(a)(iii), a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before 
May 24, 2010. 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant 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, the appellant contends 
that his counsel ignored his wishes to file a notice of appeal from his guilty plea 
and misinformed him of his appeal rights.  The appellant demands that this matter 
2 
 
be reversed and remanded for re-sentencing so he may file a timely notice of 
appeal.   
(3) 
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 
(4) 
The appellant does not claim, and the record does not reflect, that his 
failure to file a timely notice of appeal 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.  As to his claims regarding his 
counsel, the appellant does not explain why he waited almost six years to file this 
notice of appeal.  The Superior Court docket reflects that the appellant filed a 
motion for postconviction relief in 2010, but then took no further action after we 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10 (a); Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 482 (Del. 2012). 
3 Smith, 47 A.3d at 486-87. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
dismissed his untimely appeal of the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for 
postconviction relief.5  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 
 
                                                 
5 Wilson v. State, 2011 WL 1900446 (Del. May 16, 2011).