Opinion
No. 520, 2005.
Submitted: December 15, 2005.
Decided: January 9, 2006.
Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County, Cr. ID 0205013182.
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices.
ORDER
This 9th day of January 2006, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On October 21, 2005, the Court received the appellant's notice of appeal from his sentencing on a violation of probation in the Superior Court on April 22, 2005. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before May 23, 2005.
The appellant's notice purports to appeal from a Superior Court order dated April 12, 2005. A review of the Superior Court docket indicates that a capias for a violation of probation was returned on April 12, 2005. The violation of probation hearing and sentencing was not held until April 22, 2005, however.
(2) 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 a response to the notice to show cause on November 8, 2005. The appellant's response does not address the timeliness issue.
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii).
(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.
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).
(4) There is nothing in the record to reflect 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.