Title: Hester v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 182, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 22, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CORNELL L. HESTER, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§    No. 182, 2022 
§ 
§    Court Below: Superior Court 
§    of the State of Delaware 
§   
§    Cr. ID Nos. 0912010604  
§                        1002002758 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 10, 2022 
Decided:  July 22, 2022 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 27, 2022, the appellant, Cornell L. Hester, filed a notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order dated April 14, 2022, and docketed April 19, 
2022, that denied Hester’s motion for “change of sentence for good cause shown.”  
Under Supreme Court Rules 6 and 11, a timely notice of appeal should have been 
filed on or before May 19, 2022. 
(2) 
A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate 
jurisdiction.1  The jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of 
 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
 
2 
appeal cannot be excused unless the appellant can demonstrate that the delay in filing 
is attributable to court-related personnel.2 
(3) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Hester to show cause 
why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In response to the notice 
to show cause, Hester states that he timely placed the notice of appeal into the prison 
mail system, but that the prison mailroom delayed sending it.  He also states that he 
is unskilled in the law and that the out-of-state prison where he is incarcerated does 
not maintain relevant Delaware legal materials. 
(4) 
Hester’s response to the notice to show cause does not provide a basis 
for excusing the untimely filing of the notice of appeal.  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3  
“ Unfortunately for [Hester], prison personnel are not court-related personnel, and 
Delaware has not adopted a rule similar to the federal prison mailbox rule, which 
deems a notice of appeal filed at the time it is delivered to prison authorities for 
mailing.”4  Moreover, an appellant's pro se, incarcerated status does not excuse a 
failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 
 
2 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 
4 Schafferman v. State, 2016 WL 5929953, at *1 (Del. Oct. 11, 2016). 
 
3 
6.5  Because the record does not reflect that Hester’s failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal must be dismissed. 
(5) 
This is Hester’s tenth appeal to this Court involving these convictions 
and sentence.  We warn Hester that if he continues to file appeals from repetitive 
claims, he will be enjoined from filing future appeals without leave of the Court. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
 
 
5 Hughes v. State, 2019 WL 1723098 (Del. Apr. 15, 2019).  See also Thomas v. State, 2019 WL 
5096075 (Del. Oct. 10, 2019) (dismissing untimely appeal despite appellant’s assertion that “he 
had trouble accessing the law library at the out-of-state prison where he is being held and that the 
law library did not maintain relevant Delaware case law”).