Case Title: Slade v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 102, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
NATHANIEL SLADE,
      §
      §
Defendant Below,
      § No. 102, 2001
Appellant,
      §
      § Court Below – Superior Court of the
v.
      § State of Delaware, in and for New
      § Castle County in Cr.A.Nos. IN96-
STATE OF DELAWARE,
      § 06-1690-R-2, 1691-R2.
      §
Plaintiff Below,
      §
Appellee.
      § Def. ID No. 9606015413
   Submitted:   March 19, 2001
   Decided:     April 25, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 25th day of April 2001, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On March 2, 2001, the Court received the appellant’s
untimely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated and
docketed on January 30, 2001, that denied the appellant’s second motion
for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely
notice of appeal should have been filed on or before March 1, 2001.1
(2)
On March 2, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 29(b) that directed the appellant to show cause why
2
the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed
his response to the notice to show cause on March 19, 2001.
(3)
In his response to the notice to show cause, the appellant
asserts that his notice of appeal was timely filed in accordance with
Houston v. Lack.2  The appellant contends that he should not be held
responsible for delays in the prison mail system.
(4)
The appellant’s reliance on Houston is misplaced.  In that
case, the United States Supreme Court found that a federal statute and two
federal court rules were ambiguous concerning when “filing” was deemed
to have occurred.3  The rules concerning “filing” in this State, however,
are not ambiguous, as this Court has repeatedly held.4
(5)
To be effective, a notice of appeal must be received by the
Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period.5  An
appellant’s pro se or incarcerated status does not excuse a failure to comply
strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of the Supreme Court.6  Any
                                                                                                                             
1 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii).
2 Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
3 Id. at 273.
4 Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert denied, 495 U.S. 829 (1989).
5 Id.; Supr. Ct. R. 6, 10(a).
6 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.
3
delay in the prison mail system cannot justify an enlargement of the 30-day
appeal period.7
(6)
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.8  There is nothing in the record in this Court that
reflects that the appellant’s 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. Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal
must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice
                                          
7 Id.
8 Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).