Denston v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE GREGORY A. DENSTON, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 536, 2007 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 9905011124 Submitted: January 9, 2008 Decided: February 15, 2008 Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 15th day of February 2008, it appears to the Court that: (1) On October 5, 2007, the Court received appellant Gregory Denston s notice of appeal from the Superior Court Prothonotary s notice indicating that it could not accept Denston s memorandum in support of his Rule 61 motion because Denston had no Rule 61 motion pending before the Superior Court. The notice indicated that Denston s Rule 61 motion had been denied on June 22, 2006. On January 2, 2008, this Court issued a notice to Denston directing him to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for the Court s lack of jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a notice issued by the Prothonotary. (2) Denston filed a response to the notice to show cause on January 9. His response does not address the Court s lack of jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Instead, he asserts that he will demonstrate why the Superior Court s 2006 postconviction ruling was wrong. (3) To the extent that Denston is attempting to appeal the Superior Court s June 22, 2006 ruling on his postconviction motion, it is clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to consider his untimely appeal.1 Moreover, to the extent Denston is attempting to appeal the Prothonotary s refusal to docket his memorandum, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from actions taken by trial court clerical staff.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829(1989) (holding that time is jurisdictional requirement and that a notice of appeal must be filed within the thirty-day limitations period). 2 See Redden v. McGill, 549 A.2d 695, 697-98 (Del. 1988). -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.
