Case Title: Williams v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 336, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-08-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSEPH WILLIAMS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 336, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9809018249 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 11, 2004 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 27, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of August 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 4, 2004, the Court received the appellants notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, which was dated June 30, 2004 and 
docketed July 1, 2004, denying a motion for postconviction relief.  
According to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the June 
30, 2004 order should have been filed on or before August 2, 2004. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2-
dismissed as untimely filed.1  The appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on August 11, 2004.  He contends that his untimely filing should 
be excused because, due to his limited education, he mistakenly believed the 
thirty-day time limit for filing his notice of appeal did not begin to run until 
he received the trial court’s order on July 7, 2004.   
(3) 
Time, however, 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  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  Prison mail 
personnel are not court-related personnel. 
(4) 
Accordingly, there is nothing in the record to reflect that 
appellant’s 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 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3-
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