Title: Caudle v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DERRICK CAUDLE, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 460, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1802012108 (N) 
§   
§   
§   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 22, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
January 3, 2024 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On December 11, 2023, the appellant, Derrick Caudle, filed a notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order—dated November 7, 2023, and docketed 
November 8, 2023—denying his motion for postconviction relief.  Under Supreme 
Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal was due on or before December 8, 2023.1  
The Senior Court Clerk therefore issued a notice directing Caudle to show cause 
why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In his response to the 
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed “[w]ithin 30 days after 
entry upon the docket of a judgment or order in any proceeding for postconviction relief”). 
2 
 
notice to show cause, Caudle argues the merits of his postconviction motion but does 
not address the untimeliness of his appeal.  
(2) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3  An 
appellant’s prisoner pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply strictly with 
the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Unless an appellant can 
demonstrate that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.5   
(3) 
Caudle does not claim, and the record does not reflect, that his failure 
to file a timely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order 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, and this 
appeal must be dismissed. 
 
 
 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 See Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481-82 (Del. 2012) (dismissing a prisoner’s pro se appeal, filed one 
day late, as untimely). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is 
DISMISSED under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice