Title: Richardson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 238, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 31, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ERNEST RICHARDSON, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 238, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 0909018120 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 16, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 31, 2018 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
Upon consideration of the Rule to Show Cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 4, 2018, the Court received Ernest Richardson’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order dated November 4, 2015, dismissing his motion 
for postconviction relief because Richardson had served his sentence, been 
discharged from probation, and had his fines and fees deemed uncollectible. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice directing Richardson to show cause why his 
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.1  Richardson filed a response to the 
                                                 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
 
2
notice to show cause on May 16, 2018.  He asserts that his appeal should not be 
dismissed because the Superior Court appointed conflict counsel to represent him in 
the 2015 postconviction proceeding and counsel never informed him that he had 
thirty days to file an appeal. 
(3) 
Although the trial court docket reflects that, in September 2015, the 
Superior Court referred Richardson’s case to the Office of Conflict Counsel to have 
counsel appointed, it does not appear that counsel ever entered an appearance on 
Richardson’s behalf because his probation was terminated and his case was closed 
in October 2015, thus negating the need for counsel.  We find no merit to 
Richardson’s unsupported contention that his failure to file a notice of appeal for 
almost two and a half years is attributable to counsel. 
(4) 
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 an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal 
is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.5 
                                                 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
(5) 
Even if defense counsel had entered an appearance on Richardson’s 
behalf in the 2015 postconviction proceeding, defense counsel is not court-related 
personnel.6  Consequently, even assuming that defense counsel failed to inform 
Richardson of the thirty-day appeal period, 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 appeal must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is 
DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
Justice 
                                                 
6 Chrichlow v. State, 2009 WL 2027250 (Del. July 14, 2009).