Richardson v. State ( 2018 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ERNEST RICHARDSON, §
§ No. 238, 2018
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID 0909018120 (N)
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: May 16, 2018
Decided: May 31, 2018
Before VAUGHN, 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 May 4, 2018, the Court received Ernest Richardson’s notice of
appeal from a Superior Court order dated November 4, 2015, dismissing his motion
for postconviction relief because Richardson had served his sentence, been
discharged from probation, and had his fines and fees deemed uncollectible.
(2) The Clerk issued a notice directing Richardson to show cause why his
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.1 Richardson filed a response to the
1
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii).
notice to show cause on May 16, 2018. He asserts that his appeal should not be
dismissed because the Superior Court appointed conflict counsel to represent him in
the 2015 postconviction proceeding and counsel never informed him that he had
thirty days to file an appeal.
(3) Although the trial court docket reflects that, in September 2015, the
Superior Court referred Richardson’s case to the Office of Conflict Counsel to have
counsel appointed, it does not appear that counsel ever entered an appearance on
Richardson’s behalf because his probation was terminated and his case was closed
in October 2015, thus negating the need for counsel. We find no merit to
Richardson’s unsupported contention that his failure to file a notice of appeal for
almost two and a half years is attributable to counsel.
(4) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2 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.3 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4
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
2
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
3
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
4
Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012).
5
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
2
(5) Even if defense counsel had entered an appearance on Richardson’s
behalf in the 2015 postconviction proceeding, defense counsel is not court-related
personnel.6 Consequently, even assuming that defense counsel failed to inform
Richardson of the thirty-day appeal period, 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 that the appeal is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Justice
6
Chrichlow v. State, 2009 WL 2027250 (Del. July 14, 2009).
3