Court Opinion

ID: 9892318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 16:04:52.472176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:08.331132
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

     HAROLD WARRINGTON,                       §
                                              § No. 372, 2023
            Defendant Below,                  §
            Appellant,                        § Court Below–Superior Court
                                              § of the State of Delaware
            v.                                §
                                              § Cr. ID No. 2203005115 (K)
     STATE OF DELAWARE,                       §
                                              §
            Appellee.                         §

                                   Submitted: October 19, 2023
                                   Decided:   October 20, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

                                             ORDER

          After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,

it appears to the Court that:

          (1)     On October 4, 2023, the appellant, Harold Warrington, filed a notice of

appeal from a March 1, 2023 Superior Court sentencing order. Under Supreme

Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal was due on or before March 31, 2023.1

          (2)     The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Warrington to show

cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In his response to

the notice to show cause, Warrington argues the merits of his appeal and raises

1
    Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii).
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims but does not explain why he did not file a

timely notice of 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

          (4)    The record does not reflect that Warrington’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 be DISMISSED.

                                               BY THE COURT:

                                               /s/ Karen L. Valihura
                                               Justice

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).

                                                   2