Opinion
No. 30 2013.
2013-04-30
Peter KOSTYSHYN, Petitioner Below–Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Respondent Below–Appellee.
Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. N13M–01–008, Cr. ID 0908020496.
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
MYRON T. STEELE, Chief Justice.
This 30th day of April 2013, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On April 3, 2013, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to the appellant, Peter Kostyshyn, to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to diligently prosecute the appeal. By Order dated March 19, 2013, the Court denied Kostyshyn's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but granted his alternative request to pay the required appeal fees on an installment basis. The first payment of $115 was due on or before April 1, 2013. Kostyshyn failed to pay the required installment.
(2) On April 17, 2013, Kostyshyn filed several documents, which alternately responded to the notice to show cause and requested a continuance in order to further respond to the notice to show cause. Kostyshyn also filed a repetitive request for the appointment of counsel to assist him in this appeal. Kostyshyn's response to the rule to show cause is essentially an attempt to reargue this Court's denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Our denial of in forma pauperis status was based upon factual findings made by the Superior Court regarding Kostyshyn's assets, which include unclaimed monies held by the Superior Court for Kostyshyn totaling almost $70,000.
The Court previously denied Kostyshyn's motion for appointment of counsel by Order dated March 5, 2013.
(3) An order signed by a single Justice is not subject to reargument in this Court. Accordingly, to the extent Kostyshyn seeks to reargue our denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, his request is denied. Furthermore, Kostyshyn has not complied with the Court's order to pay the necessary filing fee in four installments. His refusal to comply with Court's order reflects a failure to diligently prosecute the appeal in a timely manner. Accordingly, his appeal is subject to dismissal.
De.Supr. Ct. R. 18 (2013).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.