Title: Coley v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 78, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 22, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEROY COLEY,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 78, 2009 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Kent County  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 08M-05-010 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 7, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 22, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 22nd day of May 2009, upon consideration of the Clerk’s notice 
to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed, the 
appellant’s response to the notice to show cause, the State’s answer to the 
appellant’s response and the appellant’s reply, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On February 19, 2009, the appellant, Leroy Coley, filed a 
notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s January 16, 2009 denial of his 
appeal from a Commissioner’s dismissal of his petition for return of 
 
2
property.  On its face, Coley’s notice of appeal appeared to be untimely.1  A 
notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s January 16, 2009 order should 
have been filed on or before February 17, 2009.2 
 
(2) 
On February 19, 2009, the Clerk issued a notice directing that 
Coley show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.3  In 
his response to the notice to show cause and his reply to the State’s answer, 
Coley states that he filed his appeal with the Superior Court in early 
February 2009, well within the thirty-day appeal period.4   
 
(3) 
“Time is a jurisdictional requirement.”5  The Clerk of this 
Court, or a Deputy Clerk in any county, must receive a notice of appeal 
within the applicable time period.6  Filing a notice of appeal with the 
Superior Court within the applicable time period does not constitute 
compliance with the jurisdictional requirement governing this Court.7 
                                          
 
1 See Del. Sup. Ct. R. 6(a)(i) (providing that a notice of appeal in a civil case must be 
filed within thirty days of the entry upon the docket of the order from which the appeal is 
taken).  February 16, 2009 was a holiday. 
2 Id. 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 
4 The Court notes that Coley’s “appeal,” which he entitled “Reconsideration En Banc,” 
was filed in the Superior Court on February 2, 2009, well past the five-day deadline for 
filing a motion for reargument under Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e).  It appears that 
Coley’s “Reconsideration En Banc” was returned to Coley with instructions that an 
appeal from a Superior Court decision must be filed with the Supreme Court.  Coley then 
filed a “notice of appeal” in the Superior Court on February 17, 2009.  
5 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
6 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a), 10(a). 
7 E.g., Smith v. State, 2002 WL 31109924 (Del. Supr.). (dismissing untimely notice of 
appeal that appellant initially filed in error with the Superior Court). 
 
3
 
(4) 
Under Delaware law, the jurisdictional defect that was created 
by the untimely notice of appeal cannot be excused unless Coley can 
demonstrate that the delay in filing was attributable to court-related 
personnel.8  It does not appear that Coley’s case falls within the exception to 
the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  Coley 
has not demonstrated, and the record does not suggest, that court-related 
personnel are responsible for the untimely filing of his notice of appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rules 6 and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                          
 
8 See Riggs v. Riggs, 539 A.2d 163, 164 (Del. 1988) (excusing untimely notice of appeal 
that appellant mistakenly filed with Family Court when actions of Family Court 
personnel in response to notice of appeal suggested to appellant that appeal was properly 
filed).