Case Title: Harrison v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 341, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-10-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHANNON HARRISON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 341, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. I.D. No. N2206008621 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: October 4, 2023 
Decided: 
October 17, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 20, 2023, the appellant, Shannon Harrison, filed a notice 
of appeal from his criminal conviction and sentence in this case.  Shannon entered a 
plea of guilty but mentally ill; the Superior Court sentenced him on June 1, 2023.  A 
timely notice of appeal was due on or before July 3, 2023.1 
 
1 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6(a)(iii) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed “[w]ithin 30 days 
after a sentence is imposed in a direct appeal of a criminal conviction”); id. R. 11(a) (providing 
that if a filing deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or other day on which the office 
of the Clerk is closed, “the period shall run until the end of the next day on which the office of the 
Clerk is open”). 
 
2 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Harrison to show cause 
why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In response to the notice 
to show cause, Harrison states that he filed the appeal paperwork as quickly as he 
could and indicates that he is trying to obtain a more favorable sentence. 
(3) 
A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate 
jurisdiction.2  A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable 
time period to be effective.3  An appellant’s pro se, incarcerated status does not 
excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements.4  Unless an 
appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is 
attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.5   
(4) 
Harrison does not contend that the untimeliness of this appeal is 
attributable to court-related personnel.  He also does not indicate that he told his 
counsel that he desired to appeal.6  In any event, the “jurisdictional defect created by 
the untimely filing of a notice of appeal cannot be excused in the absence of unusual 
circumstances which are not attributable to the appellant or the appellant’s 
 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 
4 Burrows v. State, 2022 WL 1435997 (Del. May 5, 2022). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
6 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 26(a)(ii) (requiring trial counsel to docket a direct appeal if “the client 
desires to appeal, whether or not the appeal appears meritorious”); see also Heller v. State, 2016 
WL 4699158 (Del. Sept. 7, 2016) (dismissing untimely direct appeal despite appellant’s assertion 
in response to the notice to show cause that counsel had told him immediately after sentencing that 
counsel would file a notice of appeal). 
 
3 
attorney.”7  Because the failure to file a timely appeal in this case is not attributable 
to court-related personnel, the appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
 
 
7 Dixon v. State, 2019 WL 6769679, at *1 (Del. Dec. 11, 2019) (internal quotations omitted).