Title: Jarmon v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NYLES G. JARMON, 
 
      
Defendant Below, 
      
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
      
Respondent Below, 
      
Appellee. 
§ 
§   No. 316, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware,  
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9509022629 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 26, 2002 
 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July  23, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of July 2002, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 4, 2002, the appellant Nyles G. Jarmon filed an untimely notice 
of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated January 17, 2002, denying his first 
motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice 
of appeal should have been filed on or before February 18, 2002. 
(2) 
On June 4, 2002, the Clerk wrote a letter to Jarmon informing him that 
his notice of appeal from the January 17, 2002 judgment appeared to be untimely.  
Nonetheless, because the Superior Court docket reflected the entry of an order dated 
May 16, 2002, denying Jarmon’s motion for modification of sentence, the Clerk 
 
 
-2-
informed Jarmon that he could file an amended notice of appeal from the May 16 
judgment if he so desired.  Jarmon responded on June 7, indicating that he wished 
only to appeal the Superior Court’s January 17 denial of postconviction relief.    
Accordingly, the Clerk issued a Rule to Show Cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely.   
(3) 
Jarmon filed a response in opposition.  He contends that his notice of 
appeal from the January 17 judgment was late because he never received a copy of the 
order denying postconviction relief, and he was unaware that his attorney had not filed 
a notice of appeal from that order.  Jarmon asserts that his appeal should not be 
dismissed because the failure to timely file the appeal was not his fault. 
(4) 
Jarmon’s argument is unavailing.  Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  
A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court 
within the applicable time period in order to be effective.2  Unless an appellant can 
demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel and is not attributable either to appellant or appellant’s counsel, then 
the appeal cannot be considered.3 
                                                           
1 Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).  
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).  
3 Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979). 
 
 
-3-
(5) 
There is nothing in the record to reflect that Jarmon’s failure to file a 
timely notice of appeal in this case 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.  Unfortunately, the Court concludes 
that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 6 
and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ E. Norman Veasey 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice