Title: Thomas v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
RONNIE THOMAS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 400, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 9606008202 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 10, 2015 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 1, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of September 2015, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 30, 2015, the Court received Ronnie Thomas’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, docketed May 26, 2015, denying his second 
motion for postconviction relief.  Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iii), a timely 
notice of appeal should have been filed on or before June 25, 2015. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice directing Thomas to show cause why the 
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  Thomas filed a response to the 
notice to show cause on August 10, 2015.  He asserts that his appeal was untimely 
because he is a layman and needed help from the prison law library, which was 
closed due to the Fourth of July holiday.  
 
 
2 
(3) 
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  We note that Thomas’s notice of appeal was due before 
the Fourth of July holiday; therefore, his explanation for his untimely filing does 
not make sense.   
(4) 
Moreover, to the extent Thomas is suggesting that he was simply 
ignorant of the Court’s filing deadline, we note that 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  Thomas’s case does not fall within this exception. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
1Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
2Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
4Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).