Brown v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MICHAEL BROWN, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 630, 2013 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 0412008486 Submitted: November 22, 2013 Decided: December 4, 2013 Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 4th day of December 2013, it appears to the Court that: (1) On November 14, 2013, the Court received appellant s notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated July 18, 2013, which denied appellant s motion for postconviction relief. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before August 19, 2013. (2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.1 Appellant filed a response to the notice to show 1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). cause on November 22, 2013. He asserts that he timely mailed his notice of appeal on August 6, 2013. He attaches a copy of a prison mail log reflecting his outgoing mail. Appellant contends that his untimely filing was the result of court-related personnel and therefore must be excused. (3) We disagree. 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 status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4 The appellant s mail log and documentation in this case reflects that he sent mail to the Department of Justice on August 6, 2013. The Department of Justice is not the Office of the Clerk of this Court. The appellant s untimely filing, therefore, is attributable to his own error and is not the result of court-related personnel. 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 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, 486-87 (Del. 2012). -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.
