Title: Ashley v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES ASHLEY,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
          Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 210, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0807030656 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: May 16, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 19, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 19th day of May 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On April 27, 2011, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated and docketed on March 14, 
2011, which denied his motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the March 14, 2011 
order should have been filed on or before April 13, 2011.   
 
(2) 
On April 27, 2011, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Rule 
29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed his response on May 9, 
2011.  In the response, he states that he believes he sent the original notice of 
 
2
appeal to the Court on March 21, 2011.  Because it did not reach the Court, 
he surmises that the original and copy were both sent to the Office of the 
Attorney General.  In its reply dated May 13, 2011, the Attorney General 
states that the appellant’s explanation does not cure the jurisdictional defect.  
In its supplemental reply dated May 16, 2011, the Attorney General states 
that the prison mail logs reflect that the appellant had no outgoing mail in 
March 2011.   
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a)(iii), a notice of appeal in any proceeding 
for postconviction relief must be filed within 30 days after entry upon the 
docket of the judgment or order being appealed.  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 Rule 6.3  Unless the appellant can demonstrate 
that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.4 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the 
appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
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. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice