Case Title: Dixon v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 129, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRANDON DIXON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 129, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 1703012089 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 2, 2022 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 16, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.  
 
ORDER 
 
After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses to 
the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 13, 2022, the appellant, Brandon Dixon, filed a notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated March 26, 2020, denying his first motion 
for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  Normally a timely 
notice of appeal should have been filed within thirty days of entry of the order,1 but 
that time period was expended until July 2, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.2   
 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv). 
2 Administrative Order No. 7 § 7 (June 5, 2020) (extending deadlines that expired between 
March 23, 2020 and June 30, 2020 through July 1, 2020). 
2 
 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Dixon to show cause why this 
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.   
(2) 
In his response to the notice to show cause, Dixon stated that he did not 
learn of the order until April 2022.  He requested additional time to obtain a copy of 
the prison mail log, which he said would show that he did not receive any mail from 
the Superior Court during the relevant time period.   
(3) 
At the Court’s request, the appellee filed an answer to Dixon’s 
response.  The answer included a copy of Dixon’s incoming legal/certified mail log 
for March 2020 showing that he received and signed for correspondence from the 
Superior Court on March 31, 2020.   
(4) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3  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.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   
(5) 
Dixon’s response to the notice to show cause does not provide a basis 
for excusing his untimely appeal.  Other than the March 26, 2020 order, the Superior 
Court docket does not reflect anything that Dixon would have received by mail on 
 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
March 31, 2020.  Thus, it appears that he received the March 26, 2020 order on 
March 31, 2020.  Dixon has not shown that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal 
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, 
and this appeal must be dismissed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice