Daniels v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MATTHEW C. DANIELS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 454, 2012 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0805042477 Submitted: August 27, 2012 Decided: August 28, 2012 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices ORDER This 28th day of August 2012, it appears to the Court that: (1) On August 14, 2012, the Court received the appellant s notice of appeal from the Superior Court s July 6, 2012 VOP sentencing order. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the July 6, 2012 order should have been filed on or before August 6, 2012. (2) On August 14, 2012, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on August 27, 2012. The appellant states that he was not able to file a timely notice of appeal because he was being held at the Sussex County VOP Center and did not have access to a law library. (3) Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (ii), a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date sentence is imposed. Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1 A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of the 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 Rule 6.3 Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal may not be considered.4 (4) There is nothing in the record reflecting that the appellant 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 this appeal must be dismissed. 1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this 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.
