Title: Riley v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KERVY E. RILEY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 54, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1711011889 & 
§                      1307019304 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  February 25, 2019 
 
 
 
 
     Decided:  March 5, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 11, 2019, the appellant, Kervy E. Riley, filed a notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated and docketed on December 6, 2018, 
denying his motion for postconviction relief.  Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a 
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before January 7, 2019.  The 
Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Riley to show cause why this appeal 
should not be dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6.   
(2) 
In his response to the notice to show cause, Riley argues the merits of 
his postconviction motion, but does not address or explain his failure to file a timely 
2 
 
notice of appeal.  Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  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.2  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to 
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3  
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   
(3) 
Riley does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that his failure 
to file a timely appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.  This appeal does not 
fall therefore within the general exception that mandates the timely filing of a notice 
of appeal and must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).