Title: Hudson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 44, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 13, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TROY C. HUDSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 44, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0701011871 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 22, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 13, 2010 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of April 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On January 28, 2010, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated November 6, 2009, which denied 
his motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a 
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before December 7, 
2009. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2- 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on February 12, 2010.  He asserts that he placed his notice of 
appeal in the mail on December 1, 2009.  He contends that he should not be 
faulted because of a failure of the postal system.  The State has filed an 
answer in opposition to appellant’s response.   
(3) 
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  An appellant’s pro se status does not 
excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 
Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the 
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.5 
(4) 
In this case, appellant’s claim that he placed his notice of appeal 
in the mail on December 1, 2009 is unsubstantiated.  Even if he could prove 
this assertion, however, postal workers are not court-related personnel.   
Consequently, even assuming appellant’s notice of appeal was lost in the 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3- 
mail, 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/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice