Paul v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WID-DONALD PAUL, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 593, 2011 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County Cr. ID No. 0905014074 Submitted: November 16, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 22nd day of November 2011, upon consideration of the Clerk s notice to show cause, the appellant s response to the notice and the appellee s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: (1) On May 5, 2010, the appellant, Wid-Donald Paul, pled guilty to Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine. Paul was immediately sentenced to eight years at Level V suspended after eighteen months for eighteen months at Level III supervision. (2) On November 3, 2011, Paul filed a notice of appeal from the Superior Court s September 29, 2011 order denying his motion for postconviction relief. On November 4, 2011, the Clerk issued a notice directing that Paul show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. (3) In his response to the notice to show cause, Paul contends that his notice of appeal was timely filed within thirty days of his receipt of the September 29 order on October 4, 2011. Under Delaware law and procedure, however, Paul s contention is unavailing. (4) Time is a jurisdictional requirement. 1 To invoke this Court s appellate jurisdiction, a notice of appeal in a postconviction proceeding must be received by the Clerk2 within [w]ithin thirty days after entry upon the docket of the order sought to be reviewed.3 (5) In this case, the Superior Court s September 29 order was entered on the docket on September 30, 2011. Thus, any appeal from that order was required to be filed with the Clerk on or before October 31, 2011. Paul did not file the notice of appeal until November 3, 2011. (6) Paul does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that his failure to file the notice of appeal by October 31, 2011 is attributable to 1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 2 2 court-related personnel. Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of an appeal.4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 6(a)(iii) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. The motion to affirm is moot. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 4 See Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979) (permitting review of untimely appeal when delay was occasioned by court related personnel ). 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.
