Case Title: Ingram v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 177, 2024

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-05-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ARLANDO INGRAM, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 177, 2024 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. I.D. No. 1209003136 (K) 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: May 9, 2024 
Decided: 
May 14, 2024 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 29, 2024, the appellant, Arlando Ingram, filed this appeal from 
a Superior Court order dated and docketed on March 25, 2024, that summarily 
denied his second motion for postconviction relief.  Under Supreme Court Rules 6 
and 11, a timely notice of appeal would have been filed on or before April 24, 2024.    
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Ingram to show cause 
why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In response to the notice 
to show cause, Ingram states that he filed his notice of appeal late because he did not 
know that there was a thirty-day deadline to file a notice of appeal, and his limited 
 
2 
access to the prison law library prevented him from submitting his notice of appeal 
on time.  
(3) 
A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate 
jurisdiction.1  A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable 
time period to be effective.2  An appellant’s status as a self-represented litigant does 
not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 
Supreme Court Rule 6.3  An untimely appeal cannot be considered unless the 
appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is 
attributable to court-related personnel.4  The failure to file a timely appeal in this 
case is not attributable to court-related personnel.5  Therefore, the appeal must be 
dismissed. 
 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 
3 See Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 481-82 (Del. 2012) (dismissing self-represented prisoner’s direct 
appeal, filed one day late, as untimely). 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
5 See, e.g., Gibbs v. State, 2023 WL 9021628 (Del. Dec. 28, 2023) (stating that untimeliness of 
appeal was not attributable to court-related personnel where appellant argued that “prison policies, 
personnel issues, and mailroom delays limited his access to legal materials and hindered his ability 
to submit his notice of appeal on time”); Johnson v. State, 2006 WL 197180 (Del. Jan. 24, 2006) 
(holding that untimeliness of appeal was not attributable to court-related personnel where appellant 
argued that “he had to wait several weeks before he could gain access to the prison law library” 
and “before he could file the notice of appeal, he had to send a copy of the appeal to the prison 
business office to obtain the balance on his inmate account”). 
 
3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice