Title: Collins v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHNNY COLLINS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 539, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0301012010 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 18, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 19, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 19th day of November 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On October 9, 2007, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s August 28, 2007 order denying his motion 
for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice 
of appeal from the August 28, 2007 order should have been filed on or 
before September 27, 2007. 
 
(2) 
On October 9, 2007, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the 
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed his 
response to the notice to show cause on October 18, 2007.  The appellant 
 
2
acknowledges that his notice of appeal was untimely filed, but states that 
there were problems with the prison mail system as well as delays in 
consulting with a paralegal that prevented him from filing a timely notice of 
appeal.  Pursuant to Supreme Court 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. 
 
(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  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 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 reflecting that the appellant’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.  Thus, the 
Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
                                                 
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
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice