Honaker v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOHNNY R. HONAKER, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 17, 2013 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr. ID 0212006828 Submitted: February 11, 2013 Decided: February 12, 2013 Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 12th day of February 2013, it appears to the Court that: (1) On January 14, 2013, the Court received appellant s notice of appeal from a Superior Court December 10, 2012 order that denied his motion for postconviction relief. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before January 9, 2013. (2) The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.1 Appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on 1 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6(a)(iii) (2013). February 11, 2013. His response does not address the jurisdictional bar imposed by the untimely notice of appeal. (3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2 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.3 An appellant s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4 In this case, appellant has not demonstrated that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.5 Thus, his appeal cannot be considered. 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 2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 3 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a) (2013). 4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). -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.
