Title: Williams v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 381, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 4, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTHONY WILLIAMS, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 381, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1804003122 (K) 
§   
§   
§   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 20, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 4, 2023 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses thereto, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 12, 2023, the appellant, Anthony Williams, filed a notice 
of appeal from a September 5, 2023 Superior Court order sentencing him for a 
violation of probation (“VOP”).  Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of 
appeal was due on or before October 5, 2023.1  The Senior Court Clerk therefore 
issued a notice directing Williams to show cause his appeal should not be dismissed 
as untimely filed. 
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a). 
2 
 
(2) 
In his response to the notice to show cause, Williams asserts that he did 
not receive notice of his right to appeal in court on September 5, 2023, and that the 
notice was later delivered to him at the prison by mail.  Williams claims that he was 
unable to file a timely notice of appeal because administrative hurdles prevented him 
from accessing the prison library in a timely fashion.   
(3) 
At the Court’s request, Williams’s attorney responded to Williams’s 
claim that he did not receive notice of his right to appeal at the September 5, 2023 
VOP hearing.  Williams’s attorney states that it is her practice to provide a hard copy 
of the standard “Advice Regarding Appeal from Violation of Probation” form—
which (i) informs her client that there is a 30-day window to appeal, (ii) advises him 
that she will not be filing an appeal on his behalf, and (iii) directs him to the Court’s 
rules that contain information necessary to file an appeal—at the podium following 
a VOP hearing.  Williams’s attorney recalls, however, that Williams was removed 
from the courtroom abruptly at the end of the September 5, 2023 VOP hearing and 
states that the form was therefore likely mailed to Williams later that day.  The prison 
mail log corroborates Williams’s attorney’s recollection and indicates that Williams 
received mail from the Public Defender’s Office in Kent County on September 8, 
2023, with plenty of time to file a timely notice of appeal. 
3 
 
(4) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3  An 
appellant’s prisoner pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply strictly with 
the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Unless an appellant can 
demonstrate that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.5   
(5) 
The record does not reflect that Williams’s failure to file a timely notice 
of appeal from the September 5, 2023 VOP order 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, and this appeal must be 
dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal be DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 See Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 2012). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).