Title: Shelley v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEROY SHELLEY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 78, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9804001318 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 5, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 21, 2010 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 21st day of April 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 16, 2010, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated December 23, 2009, which denied 
his motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a 
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before January 27, 
2010. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2- 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on March 1, 2010.  He asserts that his appeal should not be 
deemed late because he timely mailed his notice of appeal but it was 
improperly addressed because prison staff gave him incorrect information.  
The State has filed an answer in opposition to appellant’s response.   
(3) 
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 in order to be effective.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 the appellant can demonstrate that the 
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.5 
(4) 
Prison 
personnel 
are 
not 
court-related 
personnel.   
Consequently, even assuming prison personnel gave appellant an incorrect 
mailing address, this case does not fall within the exception to the general 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3- 
rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  Thus, the Court 
concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
        Justice