Court Opinion

ID: 9449308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:04:55.739908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:24.838387
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    ROBERT BETTS,                             §
                                              § No. 243, 2023
         Defendant Below,                     §
         Appellant,                           § Court Below–Superior Court
                                              § of the State of Delaware
         v.                                   §
                                              § Cr. ID No. 2109003074 (S)
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                        §
                                              §
         Appellee.                            §

                              Submitted: August 1, 2023
                              Decided:   August 3, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

                                            ORDER

       After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it

appears to the Court that:

       (1)     On July 7, 2023, the appellant, Robert Betts, filed a notice of appeal

from an April 28, 2023 Superior Court order sentencing him for a violation of

probation (“VOP”). Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal was due

on or before May 30, 2023.1 Accordingly, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice

1
 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). Because the thirtieth day fell on a Sunday, and the thirty-first was a
State holiday, the notice of appeal was due the next business day: Tuesday, May 30, 2023. Del.
Supr. Ct. R. 11(a).
directing Betts to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely

filed.

         (2)   In his response to the notice to show cause, Betts asks the Court to

excuse the untimeliness of his appeal because, he claims, staff at the prison law

library advised him to file his notice of appeal with the Superior Court. At the

Court’s request, the State also responded to the notice to show cause. Among other

things, the State notes that defense counsel provided Betts with a form that (i)

advised Betts that he had thirty days to appeal his VOP sentence, (ii) informed him

that a notice of appeal must be filed in this Court, and (iii) directed him to the Court’s

rules governing the commencement of an appeal.

         (3)   Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2 A notice of appeal must be

received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3 An

appellant’s pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply strictly with the

jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4 Unless an appellant can

demonstrate that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-

related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.5 Ineffective assistance of prison

library personnel does not excuse an untimely appeal.6

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
  See Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 2012).
5
  Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
6
  Day v. State, 2008 WL 4946207, at *1 (Del. Nov. 20, 2008).
                                                2
      (4)    The record does not reflect that Betts’s failure to file a timely notice of

appeal in this case 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, and this appeal must therefore be dismissed.

      NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court

Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

                                        BY THE COURT:

                                        /s/ N. Christopher Griffiths
                                        Justice

                                           3