IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ROMAYNE JACKSON, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 582, 2018
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1511014640
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee.
Submitted: December 21, 2018
Decided: January 17, 2019
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses, it appears
to the Court that:
(1) On November 26, 2018, the appellant, Romayne Jackson, filed a notice
of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated and docketed on October 22, 2018,
sentencing him for a violation of probation. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before November 21, 2018. The
Clerk issued a notice directing Jackson to show cause why this appeal should not be
dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6.
(2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Jackson states that he sent
the notice of appeal from the prison law library on November 8, 2018 (the notice of
appeal is actually dated November 13, 2018) and he does not have any control over
how or when the mail is sent. Jackson provided an inmate mailing list report that
reflects something “exposed to delay” was mailed to the Court and the Attorney
General on November 19, 2018. The State argues that the appeal must be dismissed
because the Jackson has not shown his late filing is attributable to court-related
personnel.
(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 This Court has never adopted a prison mailbox rule.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 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.5
(4) The record does not reflect that Jackson’s failure to file a timely notice
of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. Prison personnel and postal
workers are not court-related personnel.6 Consequently, this case does not fall
1
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
2
Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
3
Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012).
4
Id.
5
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
6
Kreider v. State, 2012 WL 2979015, at *1 (Del. July 20, 2012).
2
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
3