Cropper v. State of Delawaer

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DWAYNE E. CROPPER, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 301, 2021
Appellant, §
§ Court Below: Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. I.D. No. 9601010152 (N)
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
§
Submitted: October 4, 2021
Decided: October 25, 2021
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,
Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,
it appears to the Court that:
(1) On September 20, 2021, the appellant, Dwayne E. Cropper, filed this
appeal from a Superior Court order dated August 3, 2021, and docketed on August
4, 2021, that denied his “Motion for Writ.” Under Supreme Court Rules 6 and 11, a
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before September 3, 2021.
(2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Cropper to show cause
why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. On September 27, 2021,
the Court received the certified-mail receipt, confirming that the notice to show
cause had been delivered. A response to the notice to show cause was therefore due
on or before October 7, 2021. On October 4 and 5, 2021, Cropper filed an official
Form A Notice of Appeal, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and a
“Memorandum [in] Support of Writ.” In the memorandum, Cropper asserts various
challenges to his conviction, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, an allegation
that the Superior Court docket has been falsified, and a claim that the State failed to
provide him with favorable evidence; none of the documents that he filed address
the untimeliness of his appeal.
(3) A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate
jurisdiction.1 A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable
time period to be effective.2 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.3 The failure to file a timely appeal in this case is not
attributable to court-related personnel. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.
1
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
2
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
3
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves
Justice
3