Rose v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ONEIL A. ROSE, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 147, 2016 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID 1206001558 Submitted: July 11, 2016 Decided: July 20, 2016 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and VALIHURA, Justices. ORDER This 20th day of July 2016, it appears to the Court that: (1) On March 24, 2016, the Court received appellant Oneil Rose’s notice of appeal from a Superior Court order dated January 28, 2016 (and docketed February 1, 2016). The Superior Court’s order denied Rose’s motion for postconviction relief. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before March 2, 2016. (2) On June 30, 2016, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Rose to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.1 Rose filed a response on July 11, 2016. His response only addresses the merits of his appeal and does not address the jurisdictional defect created by his untimely filing. (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 This Court cannot consider an untimely appeal unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.5 Rose has not made such a showing in this case. Thus, the Court concludes that his appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv). 2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 4 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 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.