Case Title: Paul v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 274, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-07-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WID-DONALD PAUL, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 274, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0905014074 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 15, 2011 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 13, 2011 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
CORRECTED ORDER 
 
This 13th day of July 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 1, 2011, the Court received appellant’s notice of appeal from 
a Superior Court order denying his motion for postconviction relief.  The order was 
dated March 29, 2011 and was docketed on March 31, 2011.  Pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before May 2, 
2011. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) 
directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as 
 
 
-2-
untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on June 15, 
2011.  He asserts that his appeal is untimely because the Superior Court failed to 
inform him that he only had thirty days to file a notice of appeal.  He also contends 
that the Superior Court should have appointed counsel to represent him in the 
postconviction proceedings and, if he had had counsel to represent him, then his 
appeal would have been timely filed.  Contrary to Paul’s contention, however, 
there is no constitutional right to counsel in a postconviction proceeding.2  
(3) 
Moreover, Paul’s pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply 
strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.3  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.4  Paul cannot demonstrate that his failure to file a timely 
notice of appeal is attributable to court personnel.  Accordingly, his appeal cannot 
be considered.5 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
        Justice 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2011). 
2 Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). 
3Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
4Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).