Price v. State

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

AL-GHANIYY PRICE, § § Defendant Below, § No. 295, 2025 Appellant, § § Court Below: Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID Nos. 2212010900 § 2306000465 Appellee. §

Submitted: August 6, 2025 Decided: August 8, 2025

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

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

to the Court that:

(1) On July 9, 2025, the appellant, Al-Ghaniyy Price, filed a notice of

appeal from a Superior Court order denying Price’s motion for correction of an

illegal sentence, which was dated and docketed on June 2, 2025. The Senior Court

Clerk issued a notice directing Price to show cause why the appeal should not be

dismissed as untimely filed.

(2) In response to the notice to show cause, Price argues that the prison law

library procedures are “severely flawed” and hindered his ability to file his appeal

on time. In light of recent amendments to 10 Del. C. § 147 and Supreme Court Rule 6, which establish circumstances in which appeals filed by self-represented inmates

will be deemed timely filed even if not received in the Clerk’s office by the last day

of the thirty-day appeal period,1 the Court directed the State to respond. The State

has provided a copy of Price’s prison mail log, which reflects that Price sent legal

mail to this Court on July 8, 2025. The State asserts that because Price did not place

the notice of appeal in the prison mail system on or before the last day of filing, the

appeal is not timely.

(3) The appellate jurisdiction of this Court rests upon perfecting an appeal

within the applicable time period.2 Unless the appellant satisfies 10 Del. C. §

147(b)(1) and Rule 6(a)(iii)(C) or can demonstrate that his failure to file a timely

notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, a notice of appeal must be

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

1 See 10 Del. C. § 147(b)(1) (effective May 22, 2025) (providing that an appeal filed by a self- represented inmate who is confined in a correctional institution is timely filed if (1) the inmate’s notice of appeal is placed in the institution’s internal mail system on or before the last day for filing; (2) the first-class postage is prepaid; and (3) the notice of appeal is accompanied by a receipt from the institution’s staff verifying the date and time the notice of appeal was placed in the institution’s internal mail system); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii)(C) (as amended July 14, 2025) (similar). Section 147 also requires prison staff to give the inmate a receipt identifying the staff member who received the inmate’s notice of appeal, the date and time the notice of appeal was placed in the institution’s internal mail system, and the case number. 10 Del. C. § 147(b)(2). 2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 3 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (“Filing by mail in the office of the Clerk of the Court in Dover is permissible, provided that filing shall not be deemed to be complete until the paper has been received in the office of the Clerk.”); see also R. 11(b) (“The time for taking an appeal or cross- appeal shall not be enlarged.”); Coverdale v. State, 2025 WL 1443600, at *1 (Del. May 19, 2025) (“ Unless an appellant can demonstrate that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.”).

2 (4) Price does not contend, nor do prison records reflect, that he placed the

notice appeal in the prison’s internal mail system on or before July 2, 2025, the last

day for filing an appeal from the Superior Court’s June 2, 2025 order.4 Nor has he

demonstrated that the untimely filing is attributable to court-related personnel.5 The

appeal therefore must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice

4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii), 11(a). 5 See Hubbard v. State, 2025 WL 763597, at *1 (Del. Mar. 10, 2025) (stating that correctional officers and other prison personnel are not court-related personnel).