Harris v. State ( 2020 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JORDAN HARRIS, §
§ No. 312, 2020
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§ Court Below–Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1610001844B (S)
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: October 7, 2020
Decided: October 12, 2020
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and appellant’s response
thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On August 31, 2020, the Court received a document later determined
to be a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s July 24, 2020 order denying the
appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a
timely notice of appeal had to be filed on or before August 24, 2020.
(2) On September 17, 2020, the Senior Clerk issued a notice directing the
appellant, Jordan Harris, to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as
untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6. Harris has responded to the notice to
show cause and alleges that he filed his notice of appeal on August 15, 2020.
(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.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, the appeal cannot be considered.3 An
appellant’s prisoner pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with
the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4 Delaware has not adopted
a rule similar to the federal prison mailbox rule, which deems a notice of appeal to
be filed at the time it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.5
(4) In this case, the prison mail log of the James T. Vaughn Correctional
Center, where Harris is incarcerated, reflects that Harris’ notice of appeal was mailed
on August 27, 2020, three days after it was due. Harris does not contend, and the
record does not reflect, that his 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, and this
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
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
4
See Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 2012).
5
Id. at 482.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
Justice
3