Title: Paitsel v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID PAITSEL, 
 
 
Defendant Below– 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below– 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 131, 2019 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1401007717 (K) 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 3, 2019 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 4, 2019 
 
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 March 25, 2019, the Court received David Paitsel’s notice of appeal 
from a May 21, 2018 Superior Court sentence order for a violation of probation.  
Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from a sentence imposed on 
May 21, 2018, should have been filed on or before June 20, 2018. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice directing Paitsel to show cause why his appeal 
should not be dismissed as untimely.  Paitsel filed a response to the notice to show 
cause on April 3, 2019.  In his response, Paitsel contends that he would have pursued 
 
2 
his appeal in a timely manner but he was under the impression his attorney was going 
to file a motion to modify his sentence with the Superior Court. 
(3) 
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  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to 
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3  
Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal 
is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.4 
(5) 
Here, there is nothing in the record to reflect that Paitsel’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 the appeal must 
be dismissed. 
 
 
                                               
 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3 
 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 26(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
Justice