Title: Craig v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 156, 2024
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 7, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHRISTOPHER CRAIG, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
ROBERT MAY, WARDEN and 
TERRA TAYLOR, 
COMMISSIONER, 
 
Respondents Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 156, 2024 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  C.A. No. N24M-02-096 
§   
§ 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 23, 2024 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 7, 2024 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 12, 2024, the appellant, Christopher Craig, filed a notice of 
appeal of a Superior Court order, dated February 29, 2024, and docketed on March 
11, 2024, dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus as legally frivolous.  Under 
Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(i), a timely notice of appeal should have been filed by 
April 10, 2024.   
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Craig to show cause 
why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In his response to the 
2 
 
notice to show cause, Craig states that he mailed a letter expressing his intent to 
appeal on March 22, 2024, but this Court did not receive that letter, so he sent another 
letter.  He asks that this appeal proceed because he has been challenging the 
revocation of his good time since 2018.  The Department of Justice argues that Craig 
has not shown that his failure to file a timely appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel.  
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  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.2  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to 
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3  
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.4   
(4) 
Craig has not shown that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is 
attributable to court-related personnel.5  Consequently, this case does not fall within 
the exception to the general rule that requires the timely filing of a notice of appeal, 
and this appeal must be dismissed.   
 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
5 See, e.g., Zuppo v. State, 2011 WL 761523, at *1 (Del. Mar. 3, 2011) (noting that “[p]rison 
personnel are not court-related personnel” and “any delay allegedly caused by prison personnel 
cannot excuse an untimely appeal”). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED 
under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).    
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
Justice