Hall v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SALIH HALL, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 123, 2009 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0506014139 Submitted: May 18, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices ORDER This 5th day of June 2009, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Salih Hall, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s February 18, 2009 order denying his motion for correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). On April 6, 2009, this Court denied Hall s motion to proceed in forma pauperis ( IFP ).1 On that same date, the Clerk sent a letter to Hall requesting him to pay the $460 filing fee no later than April 16, 2009. The letter stated that, if 1 Supr. Ct. R. 26(e). The record reflects that Hall s motion was incomplete in that he failed to list each case filed in this Court for which he had sought IFP status. the filing fee were not timely paid, a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed would issue. (2) When Hall failed to pay the filing fee, a notice to show cause issued on April 20, 2009. The notice directed Hall to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to diligently prosecute his appeal by failing to pay the Supreme Court filing fee. On May 4, 2009, the Court received Hall s response to the notice to show cause. In the response, Hall states that he should not be required to pay the filing fee because his IFP motion was improperly denied under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8803(b).2 However, as argued by the State in its reply, that statute does not apply to this case. Once this Court has denied an appellant s motion for IFP status, it is the obligation of the appellant to pay the Court s filing fee.3 (3) We conclude that Hall has failed to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed due to his failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by not paying the Court s filing fee. 2 That statute requires a court to review a civil complaint for legal or factual frivolousness following the granting of IFP status to the plaintiff. 3 Supr. Ct. R. 20(a). 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the 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.
