Title: Smith v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 62, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 6, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
DAVID D. SMITH, 
 
 
§ 
No. 62, 2001 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for Kent County 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr.A.Nos. IK95-05-0002 and 
 
 
§ 
0003 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
         
 
§ 
Def. ID No. 9503021401 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: February 21, 2001 
Decided: 
March 6, 2001 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 6th day of March 2001, upon consideration of the notice of 
appeal filed by David D. Smith (“Smith”), an inmate at the Delaware 
Correctional Center; the Clerk’s notice to show cause; and Smith’s response 
to the notice, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 8, 2001, the Court received Smith’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order of January 8, 2001, that denied 
Smith’s motion for reduction of sentence.  Upon receipt of the notice of 
appeal, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) that 
 
2 
directed Smith to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as 
untimely filed. 
(2) 
Smith responded to the notice to show cause.  In his response, 
Smith states that he both “filed” and “mailed” his notice of appeal on 
February 3, 2001, four days prior to the February 7 expiration of the 30-day 
appeal period.1  Smith contends that he has no control over the delivery of 
mail from the prison, and that, under the circumstances, his notice of appeal 
should not be dismissed. 
(3) 
Smith’s contentions are unavailing.  This Court has previously 
considered and refused to create a separate “mailbox rule” for prisoners.2  
Any delay caused by the prison mail system cannot justify an enlargement of 
the 30-day appeal period.3     
(4) 
Under Delaware law and procedure, a notice of appeal must be 
received by the office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time 
period.4  Filing is not complete until the paper has been received by the 
office of the Clerk.5  Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to 
                                          
 
1 See Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (providing that a notice of appeal shall be filed in the office of 
the Clerk within 30 days after entry up on the docket of an order in any proceeding for 
post-conviction relief). 
2 Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3 Dunham v. State, Del. Supr., No. 407, 1986, Horsey, J., 1987 WL 36709 (Feb. 24, 
1987) (ORDER). 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
 
3 
file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the 
appellant’s untimely appeal cannot be considered.6 
(5) 
The record does not reflect that Smith’s failure to file a timely 
notice of appeal in this case 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.  The Court concludes 
that the appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
                                          
 
6 Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).