Title: Mathis v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHANNON MATHIS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 278, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 130700179 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 8, 2018 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 19, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the rule to show cause and the appellant’s response, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 25, 2018, the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal 
from the Superior Court’s order dated April 20, 2018, denying his motion for 
postconviction relief.  Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a timely notice of appeal 
should have been filed on or before May 21, 2018. 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant to show 
cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.1  The appellant filed a 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 
2 
 
response to the notice to show cause on June 8, 2018, contending that he did not 
receive the Superior Court’s order until April 25, 2018 and then he could not get to 
the prison law library until May 1, 2018.  He contends that, under these 
circumstances, he could not file his notice of appeal in sufficient time for it to reach 
the Court before the expiration of the 30-day deadline on May 21.  
(3) 
We disagree.  Even assuming that the appellant was delayed in 
obtaining assistance from the prison law library to file his appeal, he offers no 
explanation for why he could not file his appeal papers within the remaining three- 
week time frame.   
(4) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period to 
be effective.3  An appellant’s pro se, incarcerated 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  
The appellant’s case does not fall within the exception to this rule..  Thus, his 
untimely appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (emphasis added). 
4Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice