Title: Joyner v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 42, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 4, 2007

See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2007) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed
1
within thirty days of entry upon the docket of an order in any proceeding for postconviction
relief).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CORRIE JOYNER,
'
'
No. 42, 2007
Defendant Below,
'
Appellant,
'
Court BelowBSuperior Court 
'
of the State of Delaware, in
v.
'
and for New Castle County
'
STATE OF DELAWARE,
'
'
Plaintiff Below,
'
Cr. ID No. 0202014548
Appellee.
'
Submitted: March 30, 2007
Decided:
May 4, 2007
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.
O R D E R
This 4  day of May 2007, upon consideration of the notice to show
th
cause issued to the appellant, the memorandum in support of dismissal filed
by the appellee=s counsel, and the appellant=s response to the appellee=s
memorandum, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On January 31, 2007, the pro se appellant, Corrie Joyner, filed a
notice of appeal from the Superior Court=s denial of postconviction relief on
August 7, 2006.  On its face, Joyner=s appeal appeared to be untimely.   A
1
Id.
2
Del. Supr.Ct. R. 29(b).
3
Joyner suggests that he erred when addressing the first notice of appeal, but the
4
address he maintains that he used is a correct mailing address for the Supreme Court=s offices
in Wilmington where filings are routinely accepted.  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).  Joyner mailed
his second notice of appeal to the Clerk=s Office in Dover.
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
5
notice of appeal from the Superior Court=s August 7, 2006 decision should
have been filed on or before September 6, 2006.   
2
(2)
On February 2, 2007, the Clerk issued a notice directing that
Joyner show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.   In
3
his response to the notice, Joyner states that he mailed the notice of appeal
on or about August 18, 2006, a date that was well within the thirty-day
appeal period.  Joyner explains that he mailed a second notice of appeal on
January 29, 2007, when he realized that the Court must not have received the
first notice.   In any event, Joyner maintains that the appeal should not be
4
dismissed because the record reflects that the Superior Court Prothonotary
received the notice of appeal on September 6, 2006, the last day of the
appeal period.
(3)
Joyner=s response is without merit. ATime is a jurisdictional
requirement.@   The Clerk of this Court, or a Deputy Clerk in any county,
5
3
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a), 10(a).
6
E.g., Smith v. State, 2002 WL 31109924 (Del. Supr.) (dismissing untimely notice
7
of appeal that appellant initially filed in error with the Superior Court Prothonotary). 
See Riggs v. Riggs, 539 A.2d 163, 164 (Del. 1988) (excusing untimely notice of
8
appeal that appellant mistakenly filed with Family Court when actions of Family Court
personnel in response to notice of appeal suggested to appellant that appeal was properly
filed).
must receive a notice of appeal within the applicable time period.   Filing
6
with the Superior Court Prothonotary within the applicable time period does
not constitute compliance with the jurisdictional requirement governing this
Court.7
(4)
Under Delaware law, the jurisdictional defect that was created
by the untimely notice of appeal cannot be excused unless Joyner can
demonstrate that the delay in filing is attributable to court-related personnel.8
It does not appear that Joyner=s case falls within the exception to the general
rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.   Joyner has not
demonstrated, and the record does not suggest, that court-related personnel
are responsible for the untimely filing of his notice of appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rules 6 and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
4
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice