Opinion
No. 354, 2001.
Decided: March 15, 2002.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr. A. Nos. 00-10-0112 and -0114 Cr. ID No. 0009011345
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
Appeal Dismissed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
WILLIAM J. MATTHEWS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 354, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: February 28, 2002 Decided: March 15, 2002
ORDER
This 15th day of March 2002, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On February 12, 2002, a Notice to Show Cause was issued to appellant William J. Matthews, 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. Mr. Matthews' Response to the Notice to Show Cause was filed February 21, 2002. On February 28, 2002, the State's Response to Appellant's Response to Notice to Show Cause was filed.
(2) In his response to the Notice to Show Cause, Mr. Matthews states that his reason for not filing his opening brief is because he has been awaiting a decision from the Court of Common Pleas that was to be a basis for the grounds of his appeal to the Supreme Court. The State counters in its response that this Court has already granted Matthews three extensions, amounting to nearly four months of additional time, in which to file his opening brief and appendix. The State further contends that any future action by the Court of Common Pleas would be irrelevant to the Superior Court's decision and appellate review of that decision.
(3) Since Mr. Matthews filed the appeal in this Court, it is his duty to diligently prosecute the appeal. Mr. Matthews' brief and appendix have not been filed as required by Supreme Court Rule 15; therefore, this Court is unable to conduct a meaningful review. In light of Mr. Matthews' failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by not filing his opening brief and appendix, the dismissal of this action is appropriate pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.