Proctor v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RONALD E. PROCTOR, JR., Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § Nos. 120/159, 2002 (Consolidated) Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr. A. Nos. 98-11-0579 through -0581 Cr. ID No. 9809013934 Submitted: April 29, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 20th day of May 2003, it appears to the Court that: (1) On April 16, 2003, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to the appellant Ronald Proctor to show cause why these consolidated appeals should not be dismissed, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), for his failure to diligently prosecute the appeals by not filing his opening brief and appendix. Proctor filed a response to the notice to show cause on April 29, 2003. (2) In his response, Proctor complains of retaliatory treatment within the prison and lack of access to requested materials. Proctor s response also includes a request for the appointment of counsel. Proctor had counsel when his appeal was filed. At Proctor s request, his appointed counsel was dismissed. This Court granted Proctor s petition to represent himself on October 1, 2002 with Proctor s full knowledge of the hazards of self-representation. (3) Because Proctor knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to the assistance of counsel, it was his duty to diligently prosecute these consolidated appeals. Proctor s brief and appendix have not been filed as required by Supreme Court Rule 15; therefore, this Court is unable to conduct a meaningful review. In light of Proctor s failure to diligently prosecute the appeals by not filing his opening brief and appendix, the dismissal of this action is appropriate pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the consolidated appeals are DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Justice -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.