Davon Gordon v. Phil Parker, Deputy Warden, H.R.Y.C.I

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: September 5, 2024
• Docket: 297, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVON GORDON, § § No. 297, 2024 Petitioner Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. N24M-06-041 PHIL PARKER, DEPUTY § WARDEN, H.R.Y.C.I., § § Respondent Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: August 26, 2024 Decided: September 5, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, it

appears to the Court that:

(1) On July 29, 2024, the appellant, Davon Gordon, filed a notice of appeal from

a Superior Court order—dated and docketed on June 12, 2024—denying Gordon’s petition

for a writ of habeas corpus. Under Supreme Court Rules 6 and 11, a timely notice of appeal

was due on or before July 15, 2024. The Senior Court Clerk therefore issued a notice

directing Gordon to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.

In his response to the notice to show cause, Gordon argues the merits of his petition for a

writ of habeas corpus but does not address the untimeliness of his appeal. (2) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1 A notice of appeal must be received

by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.2 An appellant’s prisoner pro

se status does not excuse his failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements

of Supreme Court Rule 6.3 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that his failure to file a

timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be

considered.4

(3) Gordon does not claim, and the record does not reflect, that his failure to file

a timely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order 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, and this appeal must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule

29(b), that the appeal be DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 3 See Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481-82 (Del. 2012) (dismissing a prisoner’s pro se appeal, filed one day late, as untimely). 4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2