IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MAURICE J. WILLIAMS, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 374, 2016
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID Nos. 9901005150 and
§ 1011002501
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: August 12, 2016
Decided: August 25, 2016
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 25th day of August 2016, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On July 21, 2016, the Court received a notice of appeal from a
Superior Court order. Although the appellant, Maurice J. Williams, indicated that
the date of the order on appeal was July 10, 2016, he stated in the accompanying
letter that he initially sent the notice of appeal on June 29, 2016 and it was sent
back to him with a note that the post office box in the address was closed. The
Senior Court Clerk informed Williams by letter that there was no order dated July
10, 2016 in the dockets for Cr. ID No. 9901005150 or Cr. ID No. 1011002501, but
that there was an order dated June 10, 2016 denying Williams’ motion for
correction of sentence. The Senior Court Clerk told Williams that if he wished to
file a notice of appeal from the June 10, 2016 order he needed to file an amended
notice of appeal by August 3, 2016.
(2) Williams filed an amended notice of appeal on August 4, 2016.
Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a timely appeal of the June 10, 2016 Superior
Court order, which was docketed on June 13, 2016, should have been filed on or
before July 13, 2016. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Williams to
show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed under
Supreme Court Rule 6. In his response to the notice to show cause, Williams
claims that mailing of the notice of appeal was delayed by the Department of
Correction because he lacked money for stamps and had to send the notice of
appeal by “pay-to postage” on June 30, 2016. This claim is inconsistent with
Williams’ July 21, 2016 correspondence with the Court, which reflects that his
initial notice of appeal was in an envelope with a postage meter date of July 1 and
was mailed back to him because he used the wrong address.
(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
1
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
2
Supr. Ct. R. 10 (a); Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 482 (Del. 2012).
3
Smith, 47 A.3d at 486-87.
2
Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be
considered.4
(4) Williams does not claim, and the record does not reflect, that his
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. 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/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
4
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
3