IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
FREDDY L. FLONNORY, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 350, 2015
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware,
STATE OF DELAWARE, § in and for New Castle County
§ Cr. ID No. 9707012190
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: July 17, 2015
Decided: July 21, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 21st day of July 2015, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On July 7, 2015, the Court received the appellant’s notice of
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated June 4, 2015 and docketed on
June 5, 2015, denying his third motion for postconviction relief. Under
Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iii), a timely notice of appeal should have been
filed on or before July 6, 2015.
(2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a Supreme Court Rule 29(b)
notice directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be
dismissed as untimely filed. In his response to the notice to show cause, the
appellant contends that he was not aware the appeal deadline was July 4,
2015 because his postconviction counsel (who was permitted to withdraw in
the Superior Court proceedings) incorrectly informed him that the appeal
deadline was July 6, 2015, he could not mail the notice of appeal until he
received copies from the law library on June 29, 2015, and he only missed
the appeal deadline his counsel identified by one day due to the Fourth of
July holiday.
(3) In Delaware, the thirty day appeal period 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.2 Delaware has not
adopted a “prison mailbox rule” that allows tolling of the appeal period for
prisoners.3 The appellant’s counsel correctly informed the appellant that the
appeal deadline was July 6, 2015. Unless the appellant can demonstrate that
the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related
personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.4
(4) There is nothing in the record suggesting that the appellant’s
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court personnel.
Accordingly, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule
1
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
2
Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 483 (Del. 2012).
3
Id. at 486-87; Carr, 554 A.2d at 779-80.
4
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
2
that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. Thus, the Court
concludes that this appeal must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule
29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Justice
3