Thomas v. State ( 2019 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MALIK THOMAS, §
§ No. 381, 2019
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below–Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID No. 1605008552
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: October 9, 2019
Decided: October 10, 2019
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,
it appears to the Court that:
(1) On August 28. 2019, the Court received Malik Thomas’ notice of
appeal from a July 16, 2019 Superior Court order denying his motion for
postconviction relief. To be timely filed, the notice of appeal had to be received by
the Clerk or a Deputy Clerk in any county on or before August 15, 2019.1
1
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a).
(2) The Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing Thomas to show cause
why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Thomas filed a response to the
notice to show cause, stating that he had trouble accessing the law library at the out-
of-state prison where he is being held and that the law library did not maintain
relevant Delaware case law. Thomas also informed the Court that he gave the notice
of appeal to prison officials to place in the mail “on the 30th day.”2
(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3 A notice of appeal must be
received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.4 Unless an
appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is
attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.5 It is
undisputed that Thomas’ notice of appeal was received by the Court after the thirty-
day deadline. Delaware has declined to adopt the prison mailbox rule, wherein a pro
se prisoner’s notice of appeal is deemed “filed” at the moment it is delivered to
prison authorities for forwarding to the Court.6
2
Thomas indicates in his response to the notice to show cause that the “30th day” was July 16.
But in his notice of appeal, Thomas wrote, “I gave the prison officials my legal documents under
mail box rule. 8-16-19.” In light of Thomas’ initial representation, the fact that the Superior
Court’s decision is dated July 16, and the fact that the notice of appeal was docketed with the Court
on August 28, we conclude Thomas gave his notice of appeal to prison officials on August 16. In
any event, and as discussed infra, the date the notice was given to prison officials is immaterial.
3
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
4
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
5
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
6
Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 483-87 (Del. 2012).
2
(4) There is nothing in the record to reflect that Thomas’ failure to file a
timely notice of appeal 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. Thus, the Court concludes that the appeal must be
dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
3