Benson v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SHANNON BENSON, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 130, 2013 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 1201015709 Submitted: April 1, 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 19, 2013, the Court received the appellant s notice of appeal from the Superior Court s February 15, 2013 violation of probation ( VOP ) sentencing order. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the Superior Court s order should have been filed on or before March 18, 2013. (2) On March 20, 2013, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The appellant filed his response to the notice to show cause on April 1, 2013. In the response, the appellant states that he sent his notice of appeal to the Court within the required time period. (3) Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (ii), a notice of appeal from a VOP sentencing order must be filed within 30 days of the date the sentence is imposed. Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1 A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of the Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.2 An appellant s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.3 Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal may not be considered.4 (4) There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the appellant 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. Thus, the Court concludes that this appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2 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.
