Paitsel v. State ( 2019 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DAVID PAITSEL, §
§ No. 131, 2019
Defendant Below– §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below–Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID 1401007717 (K)
Plaintiff Below– §
Appellee. §
Submitted: April 3, 2019
Decided: April 4, 2019
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the Rule to Show Cause and the appellant’s response,
it appears to the Court that:
(1) On March 25, 2019, the Court received David Paitsel’s notice of appeal
from a May 21, 2018 Superior Court sentence order for a violation of probation.
Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from a sentence imposed on
May 21, 2018, should have been filed on or before June 20, 2018.
(2) The Clerk issued a notice directing Paitsel to show cause why his appeal
should not be dismissed as untimely. Paitsel filed a response to the notice to show
cause on April 3, 2019. In his response, Paitsel contends that he would have pursued
his appeal in a timely manner but he was under the impression his attorney was going
to file a motion to modify his sentence with the Superior Court.
(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 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, the appeal cannot be considered. 4
(5) Here, there is nothing in the record to reflect that Paitsel’s 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.
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
Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012).
4
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court
Rule 26(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice
3