Case Title: Goldsborough v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 197, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-06-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID GOLDSBOROUGH, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 197, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§ Cr. ID 0810007699 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 5, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 1, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of June 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 9, 2010, the Court received appellant David Goldsborough’s 
notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated June 19, 2009, which 
sentenced Goldsborough to life imprisonment following his guilty plea to a charge 
of first degree murder.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of 
appeal should have been filed on or before July 20, 2009. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) 
directing Goldsborough to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as 
 
 
-2- 
untimely filed.1  Goldsborough filed a response to the notice to show cause on 
April 26, 2009.  He asserts that his counsel told him that an appeal would be filed 
within 30 days. His trial counsel, however, has provided an affidavit affirming that 
he did not tell Goldsborough that he would file an appeal.  Moreover, if 
Goldsborough had requested that an appeal be filed, counsel would have informed 
him that, in light of his guilty plea, there was no basis to appeal.  
 
(3) 
The State has filed a reply to Goldsborough’s response.  The State 
points out that the untimely filing of an appeal can only be excused if the delay is 
attributable to “court-related personnel,” and Goldsborough’s counsel is not 
“court-related personnel.”  Moreover, the State asserts that it would not be 
appropriate to remand this case for resentencing because: (i) there was no error by 
Goldsborough’s counsel; (ii) Goldsborough pled guilty and thus there is no basis 
for an appeal; and (iii) Goldsborough’s delay of nearly a year in filing his pro so 
notice of appeal belies his claim that he desired to appeal in a timely way.   
(4) 
Time 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 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10 (a). 
 
 
-3- 
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  
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.5 
(5) 
There is nothing in the record to substantiate Goldsborough’s claim 
that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal in this case 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/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice 
                                                 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).