Title: Lowman v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 169, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 20, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AARON O. LOWMAN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 169, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 0907016090  
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 12, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
April 20, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of April 2016, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 4, 2016, the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal 
from the Superior Court’s order, dated and docketed March 2, 2016, denying the 
appellant’s motion for postconviction relief.  Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a 
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before April 1, 2016. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause why 
the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.1  The appellant filed a response to 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b) (2016). 
2 
 
the notice to show cause on April 12, 2016.  He asserts that he placed his notice of 
appeal in the prison mailbox on March 22, 2016.2   
(3) 
This Court, however, has never adopted a prisoner mailbox rule.3  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.4  Time is a jurisdictional 
requirement,5 and an appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply 
strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.  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.6   
(4) 
Prison personnel are not court-related personnel.   Consequently, even 
assuming prison personnel delayed somehow in mailing the appellant’s notice of 
appeal, 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. 
 
                                                 
2The appellant also asserts that he did not receive the notarized statement of his prison account, 
which needed to be attached to his in forma pauperis motion, until April 8, 2016 and that this 
should not be held against him.  It has not been.  The Court’s rule to show cause was limited 
solely to the timeliness of the notice of appeal and did not include the appellant’s in forma 
pauperis motion. 
3Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
4Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (2016). 
5Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
6Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
Justice