Hester v. State

Decision Date12 March 2013
Docket NumberNo. 671,2012.,671
Citation62 A.3d 1223
PartiesCornell HESTER, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE Of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Delaware

62 A.3d 1223

Cornell HESTER, Defendant Below, Appellant,
v.
STATE Of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

No. 671, 2012.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: Feb. 4, 2013.
Decided: March 12, 2013.


Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, Cr. ID No. 0912010604.
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.

ORDER

RANDY J. HOLLAND, Justice.

This 12th day of March 2013, having considered the Clerk's notice to show cause, the appellant's response, the appellee's answer, the appellant's reply, and the appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Cornell Hester, is an inmate incarcerated at a Department of Correction facility. This appeal is from the Superior Court's denial of Hester's motion for postconviction relief.

(2) An appeal from the denial of postconviction relief must be filed within thirty days after entry upon the docket of the Superior Court's order.1 The time period within which to file a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and thus mandatory.2

(3) In this case, the order denying Hester's postconviction motion was docketed on November 21, 2012. To be timely filed, an appeal would have to be filed on or before December 21, 2012. The Clerk did not receive Hester's notice of appeal until December 26, 2012.

(4) On December 26, 2012, the Clerk issued a notice directing that Hester show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.3 In his response to the Clerk's notice and his reply to the appellee's answer, Hester asserts, in pertinent part, that the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely because he mailed the appeal papers on December 18, 2012, three days before the December 21, 2012 deadline.

(5) Mailing a notice of appeal within the applicable time period does not constitute compliance with the jurisdictional requirement governing this Court. 4 A notice of appeal must be received by the Clerk within the applicable time period to be effective.5

(6) Under Delaware law, the jurisdictional defect that was created by the untimely appeal cannot be excused unless Hester can demonstrate that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to court-related personnel.6 In this case, there is nothing in the record reflecting that Hester's failure to timely file his notice of appeal is attributable to court personnel. Accordingly, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Hester v. Pierce
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • September 28, 2016
    ...Petitioner appealed. On March 12, 2013, the Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as untimely. See Hester v. State, 62 A.3d 1223 (Table), 2013 WL 994062 (Del. Mar. 12, 2013). Petitioner timely filed the instant habeas Petition and subsequent amended Petition (hereinafter referred to a......
  • Frost v. Div. of Family Servs.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • March 12, 2013
  • Kulowiec v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • March 12, 2013
    ...62 A.3d 1223Ewelina Mrozik KULOWIEC, Defendant Below, Appellant,v.STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.No. 474, 2012.Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: Feb. 27, 2013.Decided: March 12, Court Below–––Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County, Cr. I.D. No. 1109......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT