Title: O'Neal v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WAYNE S. O’NEAL, 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
v. 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 509, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. S1806003326  
§  and S1210010667 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 19, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 19, 2018 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause, the appellant’s 
response, and trial counsel’s reply, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 1, 2018, the Court received the appellant Wayne 
O’Neal’s pro se notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s orders, entered on 
August 21, 2018, sentencing him for his 5th DUI conviction and for violating 
the probation associated with his 4th DUI conviction.  Under Supreme Court 
Rule 6(a)(iii), a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before 
September 20, 2018. 
2 
 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing O’Neal to show 
cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.1  O’Neal filed a 
response on October 9, 2018, asserting that he calculated the thirty-day appeal 
period by counting business days instead of calendar days.  The Court directed 
O’Neal’s trial counsel in the guilty plea proceedings below to file a reply.  
Counsel indicates that he informed O’Neal in writing that, by pleading guilty, 
he was waiving his right to appeal, and if O’Neal wanted to appeal, the 
Supreme Court rules required that a notice of appeal be filed within 30 days 
of sentencing in compliance with Supreme Court Rules 6 and 7. 
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of appeal must 
be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time 
period to be effective.3  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.4  The appellant has not demonstrated 
that court-related personnel are responsible for his untimely filing.  Thus, the 
appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
Justice