Summary
concluding that medical hardship did not excuse failure to comply strictly with jurisdictional time requirement for filing an appeal
Summary of this case from Dupree v. StateOpinion
No. 478, 1998.
Decided: November 30, 1998.
Superior CA 97A-07-004.
Appeal Dismissed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
SHIRLEY WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant Below, Appellant, v. W.E. CLEAVER SONS, INC. and CHARLES E. (CHUCK) CLEAVER, JR., Defendants-Appellees Below, Appellees. No. 478, 1998. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: November 17, 1998. Decided: November 30, 1998.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 30th day of November 1998, it appears to the Court that:
1. On November 9, 1998, the Court received the appellant's untimely notice of appeal from the Superior Court's order dated October 5, 1998, docketed October 5, 1998, denying the appellant's motion for reargument. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before November 4, 1998.
2. On November 12, 1998, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The appellant filed her response to the notice to show cause on November 17, 1998. The appellant advises the Court that she received on October 7, 1998 a copy of the Superior Court's order dated October 5, 1998. The appellant states that, out of the 30-day appeal period, two of those days were State holidays. The appellant further states that she can provide medical documentation showing hardship upon her family from the month of August to the present. The appellant provides no other explanation for waiting until November 9, 1998 to file her appeal.
3. Appellant's argument is not persuasive. Time is a jurisdictional requirement. Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 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. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). An appellant's pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6. Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, her appeal cannot be considered. Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).
4. There is nothing in the record which reflects that appellant's 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.