Sanders v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: December 19, 2024
• Docket: 449, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BRIAN SANDERS, § § Defendant Below, § No. 449, 2024 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 2207008267 (N) § Appellee. §

Submitted: November 20, 2024 Decided: December 19, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

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

to the Court that:

(1) On October 28, 2024, the Court received Brian Sanders’ notice of

appeal from a Superior Court order, dated September 16, 2024, denying his motion

for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Sanders pleaded

guilty to possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in November

2023. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a timely notice of appeal from the

September 16, 2024 order would have been filed by October 16, 2024.

(2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Sanders to show cause

why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In his response to the notice to show cause, Sanders stated that he was unable to complete his notice of

appeal at the prison law library until October 14, 2024. He further stated that he

placed the completed notice of appeal in the prison mail on October 14, 2024, but it

was returned to him without reason on October 24, 2024. In response, the State has

provided a prison mail log showing that Sanders submitted items to the prison for

mailing to this Court on October 24, 2204 and October 25, 2024.

(3) 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 to

be effective.2 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply

strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3 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.4

(4) The record does not reflect that Sanders’ failure to file a timely notice

of appeal from the September 16, 2024 order is attributable to court-related

personnel. Because the untimeliness of the appeal is not attributable to court-related

personnel, this appeal must be dismissed.

1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 3 Carr, 554 A.2d at 779. 4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).

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

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice