Title: Jones v. State of Delaware Department of Correction, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DANIEL JONES, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE 
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, 
CENTRAL OFFENDERS’ 
RECORDS, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 123, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N16M-04-092 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 22, 2018 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April  4, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of April 2018, it appears that: 
(1) 
On March 9, 2018, the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal 
from a Superior Court corrected order, docketed on January 30, 2018, dismissing the 
appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus.  Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(i), a 
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before March 1, 2018. 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant to show 
cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.1  The appellant filed a 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 
2 
 
response to the notice to show cause on March 22, 2018.  The appellant’s response 
states that he placed his notice of appeal in the prison mail on February 28, 2018, 
before the expiration of the 30-day deadline.  He asserts that his appeal should not 
be dismissed as untimely.   
 (3) 
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 to 
be effective.3  This Court has never adopted a prisoner mailbox rule.4  An appellant’s 
pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional 
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.5  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.6  Prison personnel and postal workers are 
not court-related personnel.  Thus, the untimely appeal must be dismissed for lack 
of jurisdiction. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (emphasis added). 
4Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
5Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
6Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).