Christmas v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KASON CHRISTMAS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 106, 2013 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 1012003877 Submitted: March 25, 2013 Decided: April 3, 2013 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 3rd day of April 2013, it appears to the Court that: (1) On March 11, 2012, the Court received appellant s notice of appeal from a Superior Court order dated January 31, 2013. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before March 4, 2012. (2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to appellant directing him to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.1 Appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on March 25, 2013. He asserts that he is a prisoner and was not able to get to the prison law library to obtain the necessary 1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2013). forms until after the filing deadline. He requests that his untimely filing be excused because it was unintentional. (3) In Delaware, 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 or incarcerated 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, his appeal cannot be considered.5 (4) Prison personnel are not 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. Thus, this appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 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 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 482 (Del. 2012). 5 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.
