Title: Mason v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARQUIS MASON, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 560, 2010 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0611003390 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 9, 2010  
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 15, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 15th day of September 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On September 1, 2010, the Court received Marquis Mason’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s July 28, 2010 opinion and order denying Mason’s 
motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely 
notice of appeal should have been filed on or before August 27, 2010.1 
 
(2) 
On September 1, 2010, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 29(b) directing that Mason show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.  In his response to the notice filed on September 9, 
2010, Mason submits that he mailed the notice of appeal “in a timely manner,” i.e., 
“as of August 26, 2010,” and that he should not be held responsible for any delay 
in the Court’s receipt of the appeal. 
                                          
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 
 
2
 
(3) 
Mason’s contentions are unavailing.  “Time is a jurisdictional 
requirement.”2  Under Delaware law, a notice of appeal must be received by the 
Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3  An appellant’s pro se or 
incarcerated status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with this 
jurisdictional requirement.4  Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to 
file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal 
cannot be considered.5 
 
(4) 
In this case, the Court has concluded that the appeal must be 
dismissed. Mason does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that his 
failure to timely file the notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.6  
Thus, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates 
the timely filing of a notice of appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
           
 
 
 
Justice  
                                          
 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.  
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
6 See Deputy v. Roy, 2004 WL 1535479 (Del. Supr.) (citing Carr v. State, 554 A.2d, 778, 779 
(Del. 1989)) (dismissing untimely appeal after concluding that “[a]ny delay in prison mail 
system cannot justify enlargement of jurisdictional appeal period.”).