Scott v. State
CourtSupreme Court of Delaware
Date FiledAugust 27, 2026
Docket338, 2026
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ROBERT SCOTT, §
§ No. 338, 2026
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ Cr. ID No. 2101012508 (K)
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§
Appellee. §
Submitted: August 17, 2026
Decided: August 27, 2026
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and LEGROW, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,
it appears to the Court that:
(1) On July 30, 2026, Robert Scott placed a notice of appeal from the
Superior Court’s June 29, 2026 sentencing order in Sussex Correction Institution’s
internal mail system. Under Supreme Court Rule 6, the last day for filing a timely
notice of appeal was July 29. The Senior Court Clerk therefore issued a notice
directing Scott to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely
filed. In response to the notice to show cause, Scott explains that “complex issues
… arise at times when sending out legal material [from SCI].”
(2) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1 Unless the appellant complies
with 10 Del. C. § 147(b)(1) and Rule 6(a)(iii)(C) or can demonstrate that his failure
to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, 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 Rule 6.3
(3) Scott does not claim, and the record does not reflect, that he placed the
notice of appeal in SCI’s internal mail system on or before July 29, the last day for
filing an appeal from the Superior Court’s June 29 sentencing order. Nor has Scott
demonstrated that his untimely filing is attributable to court-related personnel. This
appeal must therefore be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal be
DISMISSED under Supreme Court Rule 29(b).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice
1
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
2
See 10 Del. C. § 147(b)(1); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii)(C); Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del.
1979).
3
Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 481-82 (Del. 2012) (dismissing a prisoner’s pro se appeal, filed one
day late, as untimely).
2