Title: Dickson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 142, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 10, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AHSAHN DICKSON,  
 
          Defendant Below- 
          Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
                    Plaintiff Below- 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 142, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court of  
§  the State of Delaware, in and for 
§  New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1103015295 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: April 4, 2012 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:    April 10, 2012 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 10th day of April 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) On March 22, 2012, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s February 17, 2012 sentencing order.  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the 
February 17, 2012 order should have been filed on or before March 19, 
2012. 
 
(2) On March 22, 2012, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why his 
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed his 
response to the notice to show cause on April 4, 2012.  The appellant states 
 
2
that he did not have access to the law library and that he is having family 
problems.  The appellant provides no other explanation for his untimely 
filing. 
 
(3) Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (ii), a notice of appeal must be filed within 
30 days of the date sentence is imposed.  Time is a jurisdictional 
requirement.1  A notice of appeal must be received by the Clerk within the 
applicable time period in order to be effective.2  An appellant’s pro se status 
does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional 
requirements of Rule 6.3  Unless the appellant can demonstrate that his 
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal may not be considered.4 
 
(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-
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 has concluded that this appeal must be dismissed. 
 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
      Justice