Walker v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ISAIAH J. WALKER, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 283, 2012 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 1007020527 Submitted: July 5, 2012 Decided: July 16, 2012 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices ORDER This 16th day of July 2012, it appears to the Court that: (1) On May 25, 2012, the Court received the appellant s notice of appeal from the Superior Court s July 29, 2011 sentencing order. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the July 29, 2011 order should have been filed on or before August 29, 2011. (2) On May 25, 2012, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The appellant filed his response to the notice to show cause on June 8, 2012. The appellant states that he directed his attorney to file a timely appeal, but his attorney did not do so. The appellant s attorney filed a reply to the appellant s response in which he denies that he failed to follow any instruction from the appellant to file an appeal. He further states that his file does not reflect that the appellant ever requested him to file an appeal. (3) Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (ii), a notice of appeal from a sentencing order must be filed within 30 days of the date sentence is imposed. Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1 A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of the Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.2 An appellant s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.3 Unless the appellant can demonstrate that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal may not be considered.4 (4) There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the appellant 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 this 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 this appeal is DISMISSED.5 BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 5 The appellant s claims against his attorney may be pursued by means of a postconviction motion filed in the Superior Court under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 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.
