Title: McNeil v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 113, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 23, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHAQUAN MCNEIL, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 113, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1409006640 and 
§  1409006067 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 13, 2016 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 23, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of May 2016, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On March 9, 2016, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from his Superior Court sentence imposed on February 5, 2016.  
Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iii), a timely notice of appeal should have 
been filed on or before March 7, 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 did not 
file a response to the notice to show cause.  Although the Court could have 
deemed dismissal of this appeal to be unopposed under Rule 3(b)(2), we 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b) (2016). 
2 
 
instead directed the lawyer who represented the appellant in the Superior 
Court proceedings to file a response to the notice to show cause.  Counsel 
filed his response on April 7, 2016, asserting that the sentencing order from 
which the appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal was imposed after the 
entry of a negotiated guilty plea.  Counsel states that the appellant 
acknowledged as part of that plea that he was waiving his right to file an 
appeal.  Thus, counsel did not file a notice of appeal on the appellant’s 
behalf.   
(3) 
The State filed a reply on April 13, 2016, stating that this Court 
lacks jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s untimely appeal.  We agree.  
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  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.3  Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure 
to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court personnel, his appeal 
cannot be considered.4   
(4) 
There is no suggestion that the appellant’s untimely filing in 
this case is attributable to court personnel.   Consequently, this case does not 
fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (2016). 
4Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
a notice of appeal.  Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal must be 
dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice