Paitsel v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DAVID PAITSEL, Defendant Below– Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below– Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 131, 2019 Court Below–Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID 1401007717 (K) Submitted: April 3, 2019 Decided: April 4, 2019 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. ORDER Upon consideration of the Rule to Show Cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that: (1) On March 25, 2019, the Court received David Paitsel’s notice of appeal from a May 21, 2018 Superior Court sentence order for a violation of probation. Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from a sentence imposed on May 21, 2018, should have been filed on or before June 20, 2018. (2) The Clerk issued a notice directing Paitsel to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Paitsel filed a response to the notice to show cause on April 3, 2019. In his response, Paitsel contends that he would have pursued his appeal in a timely manner but he was under the impression his attorney was going to file a motion to modify his sentence with the Superior Court. (3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement. 1 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. 2 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6. 3 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered. 4 (5) Here, there is nothing in the record to reflect that Paitsel’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal 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 the appeal must be dismissed. 1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 3 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 26(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice 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.
