Title: Biggins v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 319, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 29, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 319, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 9609015504 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 9, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 29, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of June 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On June 2, 2009, the Court received James Arthur Biggins’ untimely 
notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of postconviction relief docketed 
on April 29, 2009.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, Biggins’ notice of appeal 
should have been filed on or before May 29, 2009.1 
 
(2) 
On June 2, 2009, the Clerk issued a notice directing that Biggins show 
cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.2  In response to 
the notice, Biggins contends that he mailed the notice of appeal before the May 29 
                                          
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 
 
2
filing deadline, and that he should be given credit for the weekends and holiday 
occurring in May. 
 
(3) 
Biggins’ contentions are unavailing.  “Time is a jurisdictional 
requirement.”3  Under Delaware law, a notice of appeal must be received by the 
office of the Clerk within the applicable time period to be effective.4  Unless an 
appellant can demonstrate that the failure to timely file a notice of appeal is 
attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.5 
 
(4) 
Biggins does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that his 
failure to timely file the notice of appeal in this case is attributable to court-related 
personnel.6  Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the 
general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
6 See Deputy v. Roy, 2004 WL 1535479 (Del. Supr.) (dismissing untimely appeal after 
concluding that delay in prison mail system cannot justify enlargement of jurisdictional appeal 
period). 
7 Biggins’ “motion for expansion record” and “motion for documents” filed on June 17, 2009 are 
denied as moot.