Case Title: Williams v. Karsnitz

Citation: 

Docket Number: 276, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHERMAN B. WILLIAMS, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CRAIG A. KARSNITZ, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§  No. 276, 2023 
§   
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. S23M-07-002 
§   
§                         
§                         
§                         
Submitted: August 25, 2023 
Decided: 
August 30, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LeGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
(1) 
On August 9, 2023, the appellant filed a notice of appeal from an order 
of the Superior Court, which was dated and docketed on July 6, 2023, that dismissed 
the appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  Under Supreme Court Rules 6 
and 11, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before August 7, 2023.  
The Senior Court Clerk therefore issued a notice directing the appellant to show 
cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In response to the 
notice, the appellant, who is incarcerated in West Virginia, asserts that he mailed the 
notice of appeal on July 31, 2023, and that the untimeliness of the appeal is therefore 
attributable to mail or government processing delays. 
 
2 
(2) 
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  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.3  “[P]rison personnel are not court-related personnel, and 
Delaware has not adopted a rule similar to the federal prison mailbox rule, which 
deems a notice of appeal filed at the time it is delivered to prison authorities for 
mailing.”4  Moreover, an appellant’s pro se, incarcerated status does not excuse a 
failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 
6.5  Because the record does not reflect that the appellant’s failure to file a timely 
notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal must be 
dismissed. 
 
 
 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 
3 O’Connell v. State, 2008 WL 187937, at *1 (Del. Jan. 7, 2008); Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 
(Del. 1979). 
4 Schafferman v. State, 2016 WL 5929953, at *1 (Del. Oct. 11, 2016). 
5 Hughes v. State, 2019 WL 1723098 (Del. Apr. 15, 2019).  See also Thomas v. State, 2019 WL 
5096075 (Del. Oct. 10, 2019) (dismissing untimely appeal despite appellant’s assertion that “he 
had trouble accessing the law library at the out-of-state prison where he is being held and that the 
law library did not maintain relevant Delaware case law”). 
 
3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice