Title: Cannon v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALONZO CANNON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 308, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0010006075 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 6, 2004 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 27, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of August 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 21, 2004, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, which was dated and docketed June 16, 
2004, denying his motion for postconviction relief.  According to Supreme 
Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the June 16, 2004 order should 
have been filed on or before July 16, 2004.  In apparent anticipation of the 
dismissal of his untimely appeal, the appellant filed a letter along with his 
notice of appeal explaining that his appeal was untimely because he was out 
of stamps.  
 
 
-2-
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  The appellant did not file a separate response 
to the notice to show cause.  The State, however, has filed a response to the 
appellant’s anticipatory letter of explanation as well as the notice to show 
cause.  The State contends that appellant’s explanation, i.e. insufficient 
postage, is insufficient to overcome the jurisdictional defect created by his 
untimely filing.  We agree. 
 (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 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   
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989), 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-
(4) 
There is nothing in this record to reflect that appellant’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.  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/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice