Title: Scruggs v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAMMOT SCRUGGS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 145, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 1611017476 (N) 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 6, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 1, 2018 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 1st day of May 2018, after careful consideration of the notion to show 
cause and response to the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 22, 2018, the appellant, Lammot Scruggs, filed a notice of 
appeal from a February 14, 2018 Superior Court order sentencing him for his 
violation of probation.  Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iii), a timely notice of appeal 
should have been filed on or before March 16, 2018.  The Senior Court Clerk issued 
a notice directing Scruggs to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as 
untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6.  In his response to the notice to show 
cause, Scruggs states that his appeal is untimely because he lacks legal knowledge, 
his illiteracy made it difficult to request materials from the prison law library through 
2 
 
correspondence, he could not physically go to the law library until March 8, 2018, 
and his prison unit changed.   
(2) 
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) 
The record does not reflect that Lammot’s 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.  This appeal 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).