King v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOSEPH R. KING, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 650, 2011 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr. ID No. 0202010963 Submitted: December 7, 2011 Decided: December 21, 2011 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 21st day of December 2011, it appears to the Court that: (1) Over nine years ago, the appellant, Joseph R. King, pled guilty to several offenses, for which he was sentenced. On November 30, 2011, King filed a notice of appeal/petition for attorney. King s notice of appeal did not identify the order from which he was appealing. After review of the Superior Court docket, the Clerk deemed King s notice of appeal to be from the most recent decision and order issued by the Superior Court, i.e., the court s May 1, 2009 denial of King s third motion for postconviction relief.1 (2) The appellate jurisdiction of this Court rests upon perfecting an appeal within the applicable time period.2 A notice of appeal in a postconviction proceeding must be filed within [w]ithin thirty days after entry upon the docket of the order sought to be reviewed.3 (3) The Clerk issued a notice directing that King show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In response to the notice to show cause, King does not address the issue of the timeliness of his notice of appeal, and he does not otherwise identify an appealable order. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 1 An updated Superior Court docket sheet reflects that King s motion for modification of sentence was denied by an order docketed on December 12, 2011. See docket at 100, State v. King, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 0202010963 (Dec. 12, 2011) (docketing of order denying motion for modification of sentence). 2 See Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989) (providing that [t]ime is a jurisdictional requirement. ). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 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.
