Fuller v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: February 24, 2025
• Docket: 27, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RASHAN FULLER, § § No. 27, 2025 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID Nos. 1110014613 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § 1201016444 (N) § Appellee. §

Submitted: February 17, 2025 Decided: February 24, 2025

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses thereto, it

appears to the Court that:

(1) On January 21, 2025, the appellant, Rashan Fuller, filed a notice of

appeal from the Superior Court’s December 13, 2024 corrected order1 denying his

motion for correction of illegal sentence. Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely

notice of appeal was due on or before January 13, 2025. The Senior Court Clerk

1 The Superior Court issued its order denying Fuller’s motion for correction of illegal sentence on December 10, 2024. As the State notes in its response to the notice to show cause, that order incorrectly identified one of Fuller’s criminal case numbers. The December 13, 2024 corrected order reflects the correct case numbers and is otherwise identical to the order issued on December 10. therefore issued a notice directing Fuller to show cause why this appeal should not

be dismissed as untimely filed.

(2) In response to the notice to show cause, Fuller tells the Court that he

sent a notice of appeal to the mailbox at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center on

the evening of January 9, 2025, and that his notice of appeal therefore should have

arrived at the Court before the January 13, 2025 deadline.

(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2 A notice of appeal must be

received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3 An

appellant’s prisoner pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply strictly with

the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4 An untimely appeal

cannot be considered unless an appellant can demonstrate that his failure to file a

timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.5 “Correctional

officers and other prison personnel are not court-related personnel, and “Delaware

has not adopted a rule similar to the federal prison mailbox rule, which deems a

notice of appeal filed at the time it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.”6

2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 4 See Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481-82 (Del. 2012) (dismissing a prisoner’s pro se appeal, filed one day late, as untimely). 5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 6 Evans v. State, 2024 WL 4002304, at *1 (Del. Aug. 29, 2024) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 (4) Fuller does not claim, and the record does not reflect, that his failure to

file a timely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s December 13, 2024 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 that the appeal be

DISMISSED under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice