Title: Pennewell v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM PENNEWELL,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 587, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0701007721 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 5, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 16, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 16th day of November 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On October 8, 2009, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s August 31, 2009 order denying his motion 
for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s order should have been filed on or 
before September 30, 2009.   
 
(2) 
On October 8, 2009, 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 
answer to the notice to show cause on October 22, 2009 and the State filed 
 
2 
its reply on November 5, 2009.  The appellant states that he did not receive 
the Superior Court’s order until September 9, 2009, did not have access to 
the law library until the last week in September, and was erroneously 
instructed by the prison mailroom that he could not send the notice of appeal 
until he confirmed that he was indigent.   
 
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  A notice of appeal must 
be received by the Office of the Clerk of the 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-
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. 
                                                 
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