Miles v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TYRONE A. MILES, § § § § § § § § § § § Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. No. 19, 2013 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County Cr. ID No. 0709015392A Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 28, 2013 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices ORDER This 28th day of January 2013, it appears to the Court that: (1) On January 14, 2013, the Court received the appellant s notice of appeal from the Superior Court s December 12, 2012 order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the December 12, 2012 order should have been filed on or before January 11, 2013. (2) On January 14, 2013, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The appellant filed his response to the notice to show cause on January 22, 2013. The appellant states that he did not receive the order until December 14, 2012 and he believed the courts were closed from December 24, 2012 to January 2, 2013. (3) Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (iii), a notice of appeal in any proceeding for postconviction relief must be filed within 30 days after entry upon the docket of the judgment or order being appealed. Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1 A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk 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. 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 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal must be dismissed. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 3
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.
