Title: Roy v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 211, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 27, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEVIN A. ROY,  
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 211, 2014 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0503015173  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 15, 2014 
Decided: 
June 27, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of June 2014, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 28, 2014, the Court received Kevin A. Roy’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order dated March 24, 2014 and docketed on 
March 26, 2014 denying Roy’s motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iii), the notice of appeal should have been filed on or 
before April 25, 2014.1   
(2) 
On April 29, 2014, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 29(b), directing Roy to show cause why the appeal should not be 
                                          
 
1 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (providing that an appeal from a proceeding for postconviction 
relief must be filed within thirty days after entry upon the docket of the judgment or order). 
2 
 
dismissed as untimely filed.  In his response to the notice filed on May 9, 2014, 
Roy asserts that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the law library, business 
office and mail system in the prison where he is incarcerated.  In a “motion to 
amend notice of appeal” filed on May 15, 2014, Roy appears to request an 
extension of time to file an “amended” response to the notice to show cause on the 
basis that the ten-day response period left him without sufficient time to “seek case 
law or any precedent to support his reasons for missing the deadline.”    
(3) 
  Under Delaware law, “[t]ime is a jurisdictional requirement.”2  A 
notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk within the time period 
to be effective.3  An untimely appeal cannot be considered unless an appellant can 
demonstrate that the failure to timely file the notice of appeal is attributable to 
court-related personnel.4 
(4) 
In this case, Roy has not demonstrated good cause for an extension of 
time to file an amended response to the notice to show cause.  Roy does not 
contend, and the record does not reflect, that his failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal is attributable to court personnel.5  Consequently, this case does not fall 
                                          
 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
5 See Zuppo v. State, 2011 WL 761523 (Del. March 3, 2011) (holding that prison personnel are 
not court personnel). 
3 
 
within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice 
of appeal.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the “motion to amend notice of 
appeal” is DENIED.  Under Supreme Court Rules 6 and 29(b), the appeal is 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice