Case Title: Edwards v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 167, 2019

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-05-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HAROLD EDWARDS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 167, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. I.D. No. 1405023636 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 2, 2019 
Decided: 
May 8, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 16, 2019, the appellant, Harold Edwards, filed a notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order dated and docketed October 12, 2018 denying 
his motion for postconviction relief.  Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice 
of appeal should have been filed on or before November 12, 2018. 
(2) 
A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate 
jurisdiction.1  The jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
 
2 
appeal cannot be excused unless the appellant can demonstrate that the delay in filing 
is attributable to court-related personnel.2 
(3) 
On April 16, 2019, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing 
Edwards to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  
On April 22, 2019, the Court received the certified mail receipt indicating that the 
notice to show cause had been delivered.  Edwards did not file a response to the 
notice to show cause.  
(4) 
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 of Supreme 
Court Rule 6.4  Because the record does not reflect that Edwards’s failure to file a 
timely notice of appeal is 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/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                                 
2 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Mathis v. State, 2018 WL 3060215 (Del. June 19, 2018) (citing Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 
2012)).