Bratcher v. State

Full title: TROY BRATCHER, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff…

Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

Date published: Oct 25, 2007

No. 443, 2007 (Del. Oct. 25, 2007)

Opinion

No. 443, 2007.

Submitted: September 7, 2007.

Decided: October 25, 2007.

Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr. ID 0009019170.

Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.

ORDER

JACK B. JACOBS, Justice.

This 25^th day of October 2007, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On August 27, 2007, the Court received Troy Bratcher's notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated May 24, 2007, which denied his motion for postconviction relief. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before June 25, 2007.

(2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Bratcher to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.¹ Bratcher filed a response to the notice to show cause on September 7, 2007. He asserts that he was not made aware of the Superior Court's order until August 3, 2007. He contends that he filed a notice of appeal as soon as he was informed of the decision and that the prison mail records will show that he has not receive any legal mail since March 16, 2007. Bratcher does not attach any records to support his contention.

1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii).

(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.² 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.³ An appellant's pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.⁴ Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.⁵

2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).

3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).

4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.

5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).

(4) There is nothing in the record to substantiate Bratcher's claim that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal in this case 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. Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.