Riley v. State ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    KERVY E. RILEY,                          §
    §
    Defendant Below,                   §   No. 54, 2019
    Appellant,                         §
    §   Court Below—Superior Court
    v.                                 §   of the State of Delaware
    §
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                       §   Cr. ID Nos. 1711011889 &
    §               1307019304
    Plaintiff Below,                   §
    Appellee.                          §
    Submitted: February 25, 2019
    Decided: March 5, 2019
    Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices.
    ORDER
    After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to
    the Court that:
    (1)    On February 11, 2019, the appellant, Kervy E. Riley, filed a notice of
    appeal from a Superior Court order, dated and docketed on December 6, 2018,
    denying his motion for postconviction relief. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a
    timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before January 7, 2019. The
    Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Riley to show cause why this appeal
    should not be dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6.
    (2)    In his response to the notice to show cause, Riley argues the merits of
    his postconviction motion, but does not address or explain his failure to file a timely
    notice of appeal. 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 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
    (3)     Riley does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that his failure
    to file a timely appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. This appeal does not
    fall therefore within the general exception that mandates the timely filing of a notice
    of appeal and must be dismissed.
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
    that this appeal is DISMISSED.
    BY THE COURT:
    /s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
    Justice
    1
    Carr v. State, 
    554 A.2d 778
    , 779 (Del. 1989).
    2
    Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
    3
    Smith v. State, 
    47 A.3d 481
    , 486-87 (Del. 2012).
    4
    Bey v. State, 
    402 A.2d 362
    , 363 (Del. 1979).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 54, 2019

Judges: Vaughn, J.

Filed Date: 3/5/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/6/2019