Submitted: June 22, 2017
Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. No.
VALIHURA, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
COLLINS J. SEITZ, JR. JUSTICE
6th day of July 2017, having considered the notice
to show cause and the appellant's response, it appears to
the Court that:
May 30, 2017, the appellant, Kevin Dixon, filed a notice of
appeal from a Superior Court order, docketed on April 25,
2017, dismissing his third motion for postconviction relief.
Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a timely notice of appeal
should have been filed on or before May 25, 2017. The Senior
Court Clerk issued a notice directing Dixon to show cause why
this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed under
Supreme Court Rule 6.
his untimely response to the notice to show cause,
Dixon states that he mailed the notice of appeal on May 23,
2017, he is a mental health inmate who is unfamiliar with the
law, and he filed a motion for reargument in the Superior
Court on May 3, 2017. Time is a jurisdictional
requirement. As to Dixon's contention that he
timely mailed the notice of appeal, 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. Dixon's pro se status and
lack of familiarity with the law also does not excuse his
failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.
the extent Dixon argues his motion for reargument tolled the
time for the filing of a notice of appeal of the April 25,
2017 Superior Court order, only a timely motion for
reargument tolls the time to file a notice of
appeal. A timely motion for reargument was due on
or before May 2, 2017. The certificate of service for Dixon's
motion for reargument is dated May 3, 2017 and the Superior
Court docket reflects that the motion for reargument was
received on May 8, 2017. The Superior Court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Dixon's untimely motion for
reargument and therefore the time to file a notice of
appeal of the April 25, 2017 order would not have been
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. The record does not reflect that
Dixon's 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. This
appeal must be dismissed.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that this appeal is DISMISSED.
 A party must respond to a notice to
show cause within ten days after receipt of the notice. Supr.
Ct. R. 29(a). Dixon received the notice to show cause by June
5, 2017, but did not file his response until June 22, 2017,
making his ...