Title: Hickman v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 508, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 21, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICKY B. HICKMAN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
         Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 508, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0301005176 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: December 10, 2010 
Decided: December 21, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of December 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On August 11, 2010, the Court received the appellant’s notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s order dated and docketed on June 28, 
2010, which denied his motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the June 28, 2010 
order should have been filed on or before July 28, 2010.1 
                                                 
1 Although the appellant filed a motion for reargument in the Superior Court on July 14, 
2010, the motion was untimely.  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 57(d); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e). As 
such, it did not toll the time for the filing of a timely appeal from the Superior Court’s 
June 28, 2010 order.  Haskins v. State, Del. Supr., No. 455, 2007, Holland, J. (Mar. 11, 
2008). 
 
2
 
(2) 
On December 1, 2010, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not 
be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed his response to the notice 
to show cause on December 10, 2010.  The appellant states that his motion 
for reargument was mailed in a timely fashion, but was returned to him due 
to insufficient postage.  He requests special consideration because of his pro 
se status.   
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a)(iii), a notice of appeal in any proceeding 
for postconviction relief must be filed within 30 days after entry upon the 
docket of the judgment or order being appealed.  Time is a jurisdictional 
requirement.2  A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk 
of the 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 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 may not be considered.5 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the 
appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
                                                 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice