Opinion
No. 454, 2011.
Submitted: August 30, 2011.
Decided: September 2, 2011.
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr. ID 0611021983.
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 2nd day of September 2011, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On August 24, 2011, the Court received appellant's notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated February 8, 2011, 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 March 9, 2011.
(2) The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. Appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on August 30, 2011. His response does not address the timeliness of his appeal, but instead addresses the merits of his appeal.
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2011).
(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement. 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. An appellant's pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6. 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. In this case, there is no suggestion or evidence that court-related personnel were responsible for appellant's untimely appeal. Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed.
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.