Dukes v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE § § § § § § § § § § § MANUEL LEE DUKES, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 41, 2004 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County Cr. ID No. 9604004620 Submitted: June 14, 2004 Decided: June 30, 2004 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices.. ORDER This 30th day of June 2004, it appears to the Court that: (1) On June 4, 2004, a Notice to Show Cause was issued to appellant Manuel Lee Dukes, directing him to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), for his failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by not filing his opening brief and appendix. Dukes response to the Notice to Show Cause was filed June 14, 2004. (2) In his response to the Notice to Show Cause, Dukes contends that because this Court denied his request for counsel, he is unable to file his brief. Since Dukes filed his appeal in this Court, it is his duty to diligently prosecute the appeal. Mr. Dukes brief and appendix have not been filed as required by Supreme Court Rule 15; therefore, this Court is unable to conduct a meaningful review. A pro se litigant s inability to obtain an attorney cannot delay the progress of an appeal. In light of Mr. Dukes failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by not filing his opening brief and appendix, the dismissal of this action sua sponte is appropriate pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice
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.
