Scruggs v. State ( 2018 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LAMMOT SCRUGGS, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 145, 2018
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1611017476 (N)
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: April 6, 2018
Decided: May 1, 2018
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 1st day of May 2018, after careful consideration of the notion to show
cause and response to the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On March 22, 2018, the appellant, Lammot Scruggs, filed a notice of
appeal from a February 14, 2018 Superior Court order sentencing him for his
violation of probation. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iii), a timely notice of appeal
should have been filed on or before March 16, 2018. The Senior Court Clerk issued
a notice directing Scruggs to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as
untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6. In his response to the notice to show
cause, Scruggs states that his appeal is untimely because he lacks legal knowledge,
his illiteracy made it difficult to request materials from the prison law library through
correspondence, he could not physically go to the law library until March 8, 2018,
and his prison unit changed.
(2) 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) The record does not reflect that Lammot’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. This appeal 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