Court Opinion

ID: 9929434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 17:02:58.502237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:20:42.480155
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 MURRAY A. HALL,                          §
                                          §
       Defendant Below,                   § No. 453, 2023
       Appellant,                         §
                                          § Court Below—Superior Court
       v.                                 § of the State of Delaware
                                          §
 STATE OF DELAWARE,                       § Cr. ID No. 2102000900 (K)
                                          §
       Appellee.                          §

                          Submitted: January 16, 2024
                          Decided:   February 2, 2024

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

                                      ORDER

      After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses to

the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that:

      (1)    On December 6, 2023, the appellant, Murray A. Hall, filed a notice of

appeal from a Superior Court order, docketed on November 3, 2023, adopting the

Commissioner’s report and recommendation and denying Hall’s motion for

postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Under Supreme Court

Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before December 4,
2023.1 The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Hall to show cause why this

appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.

       (2)     In his responses to the notice to show cause, Hall states that he did not

have access to his property, including legal materials, as a result of a disciplinary

infraction and was unable to mail his notice of appeal until November 28, 2023. The

State contends that Hall could have filed his appeal before his disciplinary infraction,

but instead waited three weeks from the date of Superior Court’s order to pursue an

appeal.

       (3)     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, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.5

       (4)     Hall has not shown that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is

attributable to court-related personnel.             Prison personnel are not court-related

1
  Because the last day of the thirty-day appeal period fell on a Sunday, the time to appeal extended
until Monday, December 4th. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a).
2
  Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
3
  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).
                                                 2
personnel.6 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 be

dismissed.7

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

                                               BY THE COURT:

                                               /s/ N. Christopher Griffiths
                                               Justice

6
 Jones v. State, 2014 WL 1512805, at *1 (Del. Apr. 15, 2014).
7
  See, e.g., Lampkins v. State, 2018 1129631, at *1 (Del. Feb. 28, 2018) (dismissing untimely
appeal where the defendant claimed that he had difficulty preparing paperwork because he was
unable to use the law library and legal papers were confiscated as a result of disciplinary problems);
Drummond v. State, 2006 WL 1519357, at *1 (Del. May 31, 2006) (dismissing untimely appeal
where the defendant contended that he was unable to file a timely notice of appeal because he had
been on solitary confinement for a disciplinary infraction and did not have access to his personal
documents).
                                                  3