Gordon v. Parker
This text of Gordon v. Parker (Gordon v. Parker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
REV. DAVON GORDON, SR., § § Petitioner Below, § No. 481, 2024 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § PHIL PARKER, DEPUTY § C.A. No. N24M-05-124 WARDEN, H.R.Y.C.I., § § Respondent Below, § Appellee. §
Submitted: December 16, 2024 Decided: January 9, 2025
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to
the Court that:
(1) On November 18, 2024, the appellant, Rev. Davon Gordon, Sr., filed a
document deemed to be a notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated May
29, 2024 and docketed on May 30, 2024, denying his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(i), a timely notice of appeal was due on or
before July 1, 2024. The Senior Court Clerk 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 does not explain why this appeal was
filed more than five months after issuance of the order appealed.
(2) 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 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.3
(3) The record does not reflect that Gordon’s failure to file a timely notice
of appeal of the Superior Court 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 ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 3 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gordon v. Parker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-parker-del-2025.