Graham v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THOMAS GRAHAM, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 382, 2004 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 02080112184 Submitted: September 13, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004 Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 23rd day of September 2004, it appears to the Court that: (1) On September 3, 2004, the Court received Thomas Graham=s notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated July 29, 2004, denying his motion for postconviction relief. A timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before August 30, 2004.1 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to Graham pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) to show cause why his untimely appeal should not be dismissed. 1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). (2) Graham filed a response to the notice to show cause. He contends that he did not receive the Superior Court s order until August 3, 2004. He argues that the 30-day limitations period should not have started to run until he actually received a copy of the order. We disagree. Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iii) expressly provides that a notice of appeal in a postconviction proceeding must be filed with 30 days after entry upon the docket of the judgment. 2 (3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3 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.4 An appellant=s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.5 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.6 2 See also Salomon, Inc. v. Steuart Petro. Co., 567 A.2d 402 (Del. 1989); Giordano v. Marta, 723 A.2d 823 (Del. 1998). 3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 5 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 6 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). -2- (4) There is nothing in this record to reflect that Graham=s failure to file a timely notice of appeal in this case 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 within appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger 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.
