Title: Woodson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 222, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 24, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SEAN D. WOODSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 222, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0701003116 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 10, 20121 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 24, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 24th day of July 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 25, 2012, this Court received appellant Sean 
Woodson’s notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, docketed on 
March 22, 2012, which denied Woodson’ motion to reconsider the denial of 
a motion for expungement.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely 
notice of appeal should have been filed on or before April 23, 2012. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing Woodson to show cause why the appeal should not be 
                                                 
1 The Court held this matter in abeyance pending the outcome of its decision in Smith v. 
State, 2012 WL 2821889, ___ A.3d ___ (Del. 2012), which was issued on July 10, 2012. 
 
 
-2-
dismissed as untimely filed.2  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on May 3, 2012.  He asserts that his appeal should not be 
deemed late because he filed a notice of appeal in the Superior Court on 
March 25, 2012 and also because he was prepared to file his appeal with the 
Supreme Court on March 30, 2012 but the prison authorities did not give 
him the opportunity to copy the materials and have them ready to be mailed 
until April 19, 2012, which was within the 30 day limitations period.  
Woodson argues that any delay in the Clerk’s receipt of his materials should 
be attributable to prison officials, who are court-related personnel.  The State 
has filed an answer in opposition to appellant’s response.   
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.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  This Court recently reaffirmed its 
holding that an appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply 
strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 10 Del. C. § 147 and 
Delaware Supreme Court Rule 6.5  Unless the appellant can demonstrate that 
                                                 
2Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2012). 
3Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
4Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (2012). 
5Smith v. State, 2012 WL 2821889, ___ A.3d ___ (Del. July 10, 2012); Carr v. State, 554 
A.2d at 779. 
 
 
-3-
the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.6 
(4) 
Contrary to Woodson’s argument, prison personnel are not 
court-related personnel.7  There is nothing to reflect that appellant’s failure 
to timely file his notice of appeal is attributable in any way to court 
personnel.  Accordingly, 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. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice 
                                                 
6Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
7 Zuppo v. State, 2011 WL 761523 (Del. Mar. 3, 2011).