Title: Briddell v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 402, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 27, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CEPRANO BRIDDELL,  
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 402, 2011 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of    
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Sussex County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. S11M-06-005 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  September 19, 2011 
Decided:  September 27, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of September 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 7, 2011, the plaintiff-below/appellee, State of 
Delaware, filed a Motion to Designate the Defendant as a Tier III Sex 
Offender with respect to the defendant-below/appellant, Ceprano Briddell.1  
Briddell was an out-of-state registered sex offender in Delaware.2  By order 
dated July 1, 2011, the Superior Court granted the State’s motion and 
designated Briddell as a tier III sex offender. 
                                          
 
1 See Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 4121(a)(4)c., (n) (2007 & Supp. 2010) (requiring that the 
State assign tier designations to qualifying sex offenders convicted out of state).  
2 Briddell was a registered sex offender in Maryland after his 2007 guilty plea to forcible 
sodomy. 
2 
 
(2) 
On August 4, 2011, Briddell filed a notice of appeal from the 
Superior Court’s July 1, 2011 order designating him as a tier III sex 
offender.  On the face of it, Briddell’s notice of appeal was untimely filed.  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, the appeal should have been filed within 
thirty days of the July 1, 2011 order, i.e., on or before August 1, 2011.3 
(3) 
“Time is a jurisdictional requirement.”4  In Delaware, an 
untimely appeal cannot be considered unless an appellant can demonstrate 
that the failure to timely file a notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel.5 
(4) 
On August 5, 2011, the Clerk issued a notice directing that 
Briddell show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely 
filed.6  Briddell filed a response to the notice to show cause on September 6, 
2011. 
(5) 
In his response to the notice to show cause, Briddell 
acknowledges that he received the order designating him as a tier III sex 
offender, but he claims that he did not receive the State’s underlying motion. 
Briddell also states that his probation officer told him on July 29, 2011 that 
he “should have been given a hearing” on the State’s motion. 
                                          
 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a). 
4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
6 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 
3 
 
(6) 
At the request of the Court, the State filed an answer to 
Briddell’s response to the notice to show cause.  The State argues that, under 
Briddell’s circumstances, the untimeliness of this appeal is not attributable to 
court-related personnel, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed. 
(7) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ positions, the Court 
concludes that the State’s position is correct.    Under Delaware law, a notice 
of appeal must be received by the office of the Clerk within the thirty-day 
time period to be effective.7  Briddell does not contend, and the record does 
not reflect, that his failure to timely file his notice of appeal is attributable to 
court-related personnel.  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. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                          
 
7 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).