Paul v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WID-DONALD PAUL, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 274, 2011 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr. ID 0905014074 Submitted: June 15, 2011 Decided: July 13, 2011 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. CORRECTED ORDER This 13th day of July 2011, it appears to the Court that: (1) On June 1, 2011, the Court received appellant s notice of appeal from a Superior Court order denying his motion for postconviction relief. The order was dated March 29, 2011 and was docketed on March 31, 2011. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before May 2, 2011. (2) The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.1 Appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on June 15, 2011. He asserts that his appeal is untimely because the Superior Court failed to inform him that he only had thirty days to file a notice of appeal. He also contends that the Superior Court should have appointed counsel to represent him in the postconviction proceedings and, if he had had counsel to represent him, then his appeal would have been timely filed. Contrary to Paul s contention, however, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a postconviction proceeding.2 (3) Moreover, Paul s pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.3 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.4 Paul cannot demonstrate that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court personnel. Accordingly, his appeal cannot be considered.5 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2011). Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). 3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2 -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.
