Williams v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOSEPH WILLIAMS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 336, 2004 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 9809018249 Submitted: August 11, 2004 Decided: August 27, 2004 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 27th day of August 2004, it appears to the Court that: (1) On August 4, 2004, the Court received the appellant s notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, which was dated June 30, 2004 and docketed July 1, 2004, denying a motion for postconviction relief. According to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the June 30, 2004 order should have been filed on or before August 2, 2004. (2) The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.1 The appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on August 11, 2004. He contends that his untimely filing should be excused because, due to his limited education, he mistakenly believed the thirty-day time limit for filing his notice of appeal did not begin to run until he received the trial court s order on July 7, 2004. (3) Time, however, 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 Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.5 Prison mail personnel are not court-related personnel. (4) Accordingly, there is nothing in the record to reflect that 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 1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). -2- exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland 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.
