Case Title: Shabazz v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 129, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STANLEY E. SHABAZZ a/k/a
STANLEY E. WASHINGTON
Defendant Below,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below,
Appellee.
§
§  No. 129, 2001
§
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr. ID No. 9605009976
§ 
§
§
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 18th day of October 2001,  it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant Stanley Shabazz filed this appeal from a Superior Court
order denying his motion for postconviction relief.  His opening brief on appeal
originally was due June 18, 2001. That date has been extended several times.  Most
recently, Shabazz received an extension from August 29, 2001 to October 1, 2001 to
file his opening brief.  He was informed at that time that a Notice to Show Cause
would issue if he did not file his opening brief by the October 1 due date.  Shabazz did
not file his opening brief.
(2)
On October 2, 2001, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to Shabazz
directing him to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed, pursuant to
-2-
Supreme Court Rule 29(b), for his failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by not
filing his opening brief and appendix.  Shabazz filed a response to the Notice to Show
Cause on October 11,  2001.  In his response, Shabazz contends that he was unable
to file his brief because Community Legal Aid did not respond to his request for legal
assistance.
(3)
Shabazz’s contention is unavailing.  Shabazz previously filed a motion
for the appointment of counsel in this appeal, which the Court denied.  Shabazz was
informed at that time that he did not have a right to appointed counsel in this matter.
 Shabazz was given plenty of time to seek the aid of counsel.  To the extent that his
efforts were unsuccessful, that is no excuse for Shabazz not filing his opening brief
in a timely manner.  Shabazz filed the appeal in this Court, and it is his duty to
prosecute the appeal diligently. Having failed to file his opening brief and appendix,
despite numerous opportunities to do so, this Court is unable to conduct a meaningful
review of his claims.  Accordingly, dismissal of this appeal is appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice