Title: Salasky v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 298, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 4, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID A. SALASKY,  
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 298, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 11090124191 (N) 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 27, 2022 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 4, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s 
response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 23, 2022, the appellant, David A. Salasky, filed a notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated and docketed on July 7, 2022, denying his 
motion to withdraw his 2013 guilty but mentally ill plea.  A timely notice of appeal 
should have been filed on or before August 8, 2022.1  The Chief Deputy Clerk issued 
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv) (providing that notice of appeal from postconviction decision must be 
filed within thirty days of entry of the order on the docket); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a) (providing that 
if the last day of the time period prescribed by the Rules falls on the weekend or a holiday then the 
time period runs until the end of the next day the Clerk’s office is open). 
2 
 
a notice directing Salasky to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as 
untimely filed.   
(2) 
In his response to the notice to show cause, Salasky states that he has 
limited access to the law library at the out-of-state prison where he is incarcerated 
and that he is unskilled in the law.  He also states that his former counsel has not 
provided his case file to him.  In addition to the notice of appeal, Salasky has filed 
motions to compel his former defense counsel to produce his case file and to vacate 
his guilty plea in this Court.   
(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   
(4) 
Salasky has not shown that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal 
is attributable to court-related personnel.6  Consequently, this case does not fall 
 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
6 See, e.g., Hester v. State, 2022 WL 2913357, at *1 (Del. July 22, 2022) (dismissing untimely 
appeal where the appellant asserted that he was unskilled in the law and the out-of-state prison 
where he was incarcerated did not have Delaware legal materials); Parker v. State, 2021 WL 
4495821, at *1 (Del. Sept. 30, 2021) (dismissing untimely appeal where inmate claimed his appeal 
3 
 
within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of 
appeal, and this appeal must be dismissed.  Dismissal of this appeal renders 
Salasky’s motions moot.     
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED.  The motions are denied as moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice 
 
 
was late because he lacked education regarding the law and COVID-19 restrictions interfered with 
his access to the prison law library);