Title: Smith v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 197, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 8, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAY T. SMITH, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 197, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0801036136 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 26, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 8, 2009 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of June 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 7, 2009, the Court received Jay Smith’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court sentencing order, dated October 17, 2008, 
following Smith’s entry of a guilty plea on several criminal charges.  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have 
been filed on or before November 16, 2008. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing Smith to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed 
 
 
-2- 
as untimely filed.1  Smith filed a response to the notice to show cause on 
April 21, 2009.  Smith asserts that his attorney had filed a motion for 
reconsideration of sentence and that Smith was unaware that such a motion 
had been filed.  He further contends that his attorney never informed him 
that the motion for reconsideration was denied on November 19, 2008 and, 
therefore, he did not know that he should have filed an appeal within 30 days 
of the Superior Court’s November 19 order.  The State has filed a reply to 
Smith’s response contending that Smith has offered no basis to excuse his 
untimely filing.   
(3) 
We agree.  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 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.4 To the extent 
Smith is seeking to appeal from his October 17 sentencing, he has offered no 
basis to excuse his untimely filing. To the extent Smith is seeking to appeal 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3- 
the November 19, 2008 denial of his motion for modification of sentence, he 
blames his attorney’s lack of communication for his untimely filing.  
Defense counsel, however, is not court-related personnel and, therefore, any 
alleged error by counsel is insufficient to excuse Smith’s untimely filing.5   
(4) 
There is nothing in the record to substantiate that Smith’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/ Jack B. Jacobs 
           Justice 
                                                 
5 Honaker v. State, 2006 WL 298165 (Del. Feb. 6, 2006).