VanLier v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: October 25, 2024
• Docket: 391, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SHAWN VANLIER, § § No. 391, 2024 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 9809006423 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: October 10, 2024 Decided: October 25, 2024

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

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

appears to the Court that:

(1) On September 17, 2024, the appellant, Shawn VanLier, filed a notice

of appeal from the Superior Court’s August 15, 2024 order sentencing him for a

violation of probation. Under Supreme Court Rules 6 and 10, a timely notice of

appeal was due on or before September 16, 2024. The Senior Court Clerk therefore

issued a notice directing VanLier to show cause why this appeal should not be

dismissed as untimely filed.

(2) In response to the notice to show cause, VanLier advised the Court that

he put the notice of appeal in the prison mail system on September 12, “which allowed for a 3 day deadline.” At the Court’s request, the State also responded to the

notice to show cause and argued that this appeal must be dismissed because

VanLier’s untimely filing cannot be attributed to court-related personnel.

(3) 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 As the State correctly

observes, 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.4 “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.”5

(4) VanLier does not claim, and the record does not reflect, that his failure

to file a timely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s August 15, 2024 order is

attributable to court-related personnel. Consequently, this case does not fall within

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). 5 Evans v. State, 2024 WL 4002304, at *1 (Del. Aug. 29, 2024) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2 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 is

DISMISSED under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice