Title: Ringgold v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES RINGGOLD, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 265, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0907029340 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 27, 2015 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 2, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 2nd day of September 2015, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 27, 2015, the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal 
from a Superior Court order, dated March 16, 2015 and docketed on March 17, 
2015, denying the appellant’s motion for correction of sentence.  Under Supreme 
Court Rule 6(a)(iii), a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before 
April 16, 2015. 
(2) 
On June 24, 2015, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing 
the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely 
filed under Supreme Court Rule 6.  The appellant requested, and received, an 
extension to file a response to the notice to show cause.  The appellant did not 
2 
 
respond to the notice to show cause until after the time for the extension had 
expired, making his appeal subject to dismissal.1   In his untimely response to the 
notice to show cause, the appellant argues that he has established good cause for 
the untimely notice of appeal because he was ill and did not have access to legal 
resources or legal assistance.   
(3) 
Even if the appellant’s response to the notice to show cause was 
timely, this appeal must be dismissed.  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 in order to be effective.3  An appellant’s pro se status 
does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 
Supreme Court Rule 6.4  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 
(4) 
The appellant does not claim, and the record does not reflect, 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.  Thus, the Court concludes that 
this appeal must be dismissed. 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 3(a)(2); Supr. Ct. R. 29(b).   
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 485-87 (Del. 2012). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
Chief Justice