Williams v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SCOTT F. WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 59, 2001 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr. A. Nos. S96-03-0419 and -0414 Cr. ID No. 9602008296 ORDER This 2nd day of March 2001, it appears to the Court that: (1) On February 7, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for the appellant's failure to file his notice of appeal within 30 days after entry upon the docket of the order, dated November 27, 2000, from which the appeal is taken, as required by Supreme Court Rule 6. (2) The notice to show cause was sent to appellant at Sussex Correctional Institution, the address he gave when he filed the notice of appeal. On February 13th, the notice to show cause was returned to the Clerk s office with the notation, Moved, left no address. The Clerk s office contacted the Department of Correction and obtained an address for appellant in Laurel, Delaware, to which the notice to show cause was then forwarded. On February 20th, that mailing was returned to the Clerk s office with the notation, No such street . . .number. The Clerk s office again contacted the Department of Correction and obtained two other addresses in Laurel, Delaware, to which the notice to show cause was again forwarded. Both mailings were returned to the Clerk s office on February 27th marked, attempted, not known, and no such street and number. (3) As a condition for an appellant appearing pro se, the appellant is responsible for designating an address at which the appellant can be reached and for informing the Court of any changes in that address. The Court has attempted to contact the appellant several times at the address he provided. The appellant having failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the required ten-day period, and having failed to report his current address to the Court, dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice Supr. Ct. R. 3(b)(2); Supr. Ct. R. 30(c). 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.
