Love a/k/a Demby v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RAHEEM LOVE a/k/a RAYMOND O. DEMBY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 155, 2004 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County Cr. ID No. 9511007512 Submitted: May 4, 2004 Decided: May 17, 2004 Before BERGER, STEELE, and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 17th day of May 2004, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Raheem Love, filed a notice of appeal on April 23, 2004 from an order of the Superior Court dated March 17, 2004 and docketed on March 18, 2004. The Superior Court s order denied Love s motion for correction of an illegal sentence. On April 23, 2004, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice to Love to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file his notice of appeal within the thirty-day appeal period. Love filed a response to the notice to show cause on May 4, 2004 stating that he timely mailed his notice of appeal. He requests the Court to consider his appeal on its merits. (2) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1 Timely filing requires that the notice of appeal be filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court. 2 This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal when the notice of appeal is not filed with the Clerk of this Court in a timely manner unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. Love s untimely filing in this case is not attributable to court-related personnel.3 Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this untimely appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 6 and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Justice 1 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii); 10 Del. C. § 148. 2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989) (holding that delay in prison mail system does not justify enlargement of appeal period). 3 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
