Title: Purnell v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 96, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 2, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AARON PURNELL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 96, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1607019111 (K) 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 19, 2019 
Decided: 
April 2, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 4, 2019, the appellant, Aaron Purnell, filed a notice of appeal 
from a Superior Court order dated and docketed on January 23, 2019 denying his 
motion for postconviction relief.  Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of 
appeal should have been filed on or before February 22, 2019. 
 
2 
(2) 
A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate 
jurisdiction.1  The jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of 
appeal cannot be excused unless the appellant can demonstrate that the delay in filing 
is attributable to court-related personnel.2 
(3) 
On March 5, 2019, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing 
Purnell to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In 
response to the notice to show cause, Purnell attributes the untimeliness of his notice 
of appeal to his unfamiliarity with the legal system and to the fact that he is 
incarcerated in a maximum security unit at the James T. Vaughn Correctional 
Center.  
(4) 
Purnell’s response to the notice to show cause does not provide a basis 
for excusing the untimely filing of the notice of appeal.  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the 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  Because the record 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 
4 Mathis v. State, 2018 WL 3060215 (Del. June 19, 2018) (citing Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 
2012)). 
 
3 
does not reflect that Purnell’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable 
to court-related personnel, the appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice