Case Title: Bradford v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 201, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-06-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
RYAN BRADFORD, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 201, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1206004277 
§  and 1206010374 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 11, 2015 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 9, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 9th day of June 2015, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 24, 2015, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, docketed March 23, 2015, dismissing 
his motion for postconviction relief.  Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iii), a 
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before April 22, 2015. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice directing appellant to show cause 
why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.1  Appellant filed a 
response to the notice to show cause on May 11, 2015.  He asserts that his 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2015). 
 
 
-2- 
appeal should be considered timely because he delivered his appeal papers to 
the prison mail room to be put in the mail on April 20, 2015, before the 
filing deadline.   
(3) 
In Delaware, the 30-day appeal period is a jurisdictional 
requirement.2  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.3  An 
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the 
jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Delaware has not 
adopted a “mailbox rule” that allows this Court to toll the appeal period for 
prisoners.5  Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a 
timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal 
cannot be considered.6 
(4) 
Prison 
personnel 
are 
not 
court-related 
personnel.   
Consequently, even assuming prison personnel delayed in putting his appeal 
into the mail, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule 
that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  Thus, the Court 
concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
5 See id. 
6Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3- 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice