Title: Sells v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM S. SELLS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 275, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1108023648 (K),  
§  1109005261 (K) 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 4, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 11, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 11th day of June 2018, upon consideration of the notice to show cause 
and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 24, 2018, the appellant, William S. Sells, filed a notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated and docketed on April 23, 2018, denying 
his first motion for postconviction relief from his guilty plea and sentence.  Under 
Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or 
before May 23, 2018.  The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Sells to show 
cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme 
Court Rule 6.  In his response to the notice to show cause, Sells states that he mailed 
the notice of appeal on May 21, 2018, before the expiration of the time to appeal.   
2 
 
(2) 
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  This Court has never adopted a prison mailbox rule.3  An 
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the 
jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  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.5   
(3) 
The record does not reflect that Sells’ failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.  Prison personnel and postal workers 
are not court-related personnel.6  Consequently, this case does not fall within the 
exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  
This appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
4 Id. 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
6 Kreider v. State, 2012 WL 2979015, at *1 (Del. July 20, 2012).