Ismaaeel v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MAAHIR B. ISMAAEEL, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 59, 2007 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County Cr. ID No. 0304002130 Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: April 2, 2007 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justice . ORDER This 2nd day of April 2007, it appears to the Court that: (1) In November 2006, Ismaaeel filed his second motion for postconviction relief. The Superior Court denied the motion by order dated January 4, 2007, which was docketed on January 5, 2007. Ismaaeel filed his notice of appeal in this Court on February 8, 2007. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the January 5, 2007 order should have been filed on or before February 5, 2007. (2) On February 12, 2007, 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. Ismaaeel filed his response to the notice to show cause on February 15, 2007. He states that he did not receive the Superior Court s decision until January 19, 2007 and, therefore, the appeal was filed within the required 30-day period. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry upon the docket of the judgment or order being appealed. (3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1 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.2 An appellant s pro se status does not excuse a failure to strictly comply with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3 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.4 (4) There is nothing in the record reflecting that Ismaaeel 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 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. 1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2 2 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 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.
