Opinion
No. 129, 2001
October 18, 2001
Superior Court New Castle County ID No. 9605009976
APPEAL DISMISSED
Unpublished Opinion is below.
STANLEY E. SHABAZZ a/k/a STANLEY E. WASHINGTON Defendant Below-Appellant v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 129, 2001 Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. October 18, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 18th day of October 2001, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant Stanley Shabazz filed this appeal from a Superior Court order denying his motion for postconviction relief. His opening brief on appeal originally was due June 18, 2001. That date has been extended several times. Most recently, Shabazz received an extension from August 29, 2001 to October 1, 2001 to file his opening brief. He was informed at that time that a Notice to Show Cause would issue if he did not file his opening brief by the October 1 due date. Shabazz did not file his opening brief.
(2) On October 2, 2001, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to Shabazz directing him to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), for his failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by not filing his opening brief and appendix. Shabazz filed a response to the Notice to Show Cause on October 11, 2001. In his response, Shabazz contends that he was unable to file his brief because Community Legal Aid did not respond to his request for legal assistance.
(3) Shabazz's contention is unavailing. Shabazz previously filed a motion for the appointment of counsel in this appeal, which the Court denied. Shabazz was informed at that time that he did not have a right to appointed counsel in this matter. Shabazz was given plenty of time to seek the aid of counsel. To the extent that his efforts were unsuccessful, that is no excuse for Shabazz not filing his opening brief in a timely manner. Shabazz filed the appeal in this Court, and it is his duty to prosecute the appeal diligently. Having failed to file his opening brief and appendix, despite numerous opportunities to do so, this Court is unable to conduct a meaningful review of his claims. Accordingly, dismissal of this appeal is appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.