Case Title: Johnson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 339, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-07-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONALD N. JOHNSON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 339, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9812007273A 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 10, 2012 
Decided: July 18, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 18th day of July 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On June 21, 2012, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated and docketed on May 10, 
2012, which denied his motion for sentence reduction.  Pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s May 10, 
2012 order should have been filed on or before June 11, 2012.   
 
(2) 
On June 21, 2012, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the 
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.  The appellant filed a response 
to the notice to show cause on July 3, 2012.  The appellant states that he did 
 
2
not receive notification of the Superior Court’s order until May 26, 2012, 
when he received a copy of the docket sheet.  The appellant provides no 
other explanation why he did not file the notice of appeal until June 21, 
2012.1 
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (iii), a notice of appeal in any proceeding 
for postconviction relief must be filed within 30 days after entry upon the 
docket of the judgment or order being appealed.  Time is a jurisdictional 
requirement.2  A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk 
of the 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 Rule 6.4  Unless the appellant can demonstrate 
that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal may not be considered.5 
 
(4) 
The appellant in this case concedes that he was aware of the 
Superior Court’s order by May 26, 2012.  He offers no explanation for why 
he was unable to file a timely notice of appeal by the due date of June 11, 
2012.  The appellant’s statement that his notice of appeal was timely because 
                                                 
1 The Superior Court docket reflects that a certified copy of the docket sheet as well as a 
certified copy of the Superior Court’s order was sent to the appellant on May 22, 2012. 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
it was filed within 30 days of May 26, 2012 is incorrect.  The record does 
not support a finding that the appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.  Rather, it appears that the 
appellant relied on the erroneous assumption that he had 30 days from the 
date of May 26, 2012 in which to file his appeal.  Thus, the Court concludes 
that this appeal must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice