Smith v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SEAN SMITH, §
§ No. 496, 2024
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ Cr. ID No. 2209007025 (N)
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§
Appellee. §

Submitted: December 30, 2024
Decided: January 9, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,

it appears to the Court that:

(1) On December 2, 2024, the appellant, Sean Smith, filed a notice of

appeal from the Superior Court’s October 28, 2024 order denying his motion for

postconviction relief. Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal was

due on or before November 27, 2024. The Senior Court Clerk therefore issued a

notice directing Smith to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as

untimely filed.

(2) In response to the notice to show cause, Smith notes that the envelope

containing his notice of appeal is postmarked November 26, 2024, and argues that
his appeal was therefore timely filed. Smith also claims that “if there were any

disputes about the filing date, Delaware courts apply the ‘prison mailbox rule’ for

pro se incarcerated litigants.”

(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 An

appellant’s prisoner pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply strictly with

the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3 An untimely appeal

cannot be considered unless an appellant can demonstrate that his failure to file a

timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.4 “Correctional

officers and other prison personnel are not court-related personnel,” and, contrary to

Smith’s position in his response to the notice to show cause, “Delaware has not

adopted a rule similar to the federal prison mailbox rule, which deems a notice of

appeal filed at the time it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.”5

(4) Smith does not claim, and the record does not reflect, that his failure to

file a timely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s October 28, 2024 order is

attributable to court-related personnel. Consequently, this case does not fall within

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
See Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481-82 (Del. 2012) (dismissing a prisoner’s pro se appeal, filed one
day late, as untimely).
4
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
5
Evans v. State, 2024 WL 4002304, at *1 (Del. Aug. 29, 2024) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
2
the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal,

and this appeal must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

DISMISSED under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice

3