Summary
dismissing untimely appeal where the defendant contended that he was unable to file a timely notice of appeal because he had been on solitary confinement for a disciplinary infraction and did not have access to his personal documents
Summary of this case from Hall v. StateOpinion
No. 181, 2006.
Submitted: April 21, 2006.
Decided: May 31, 2006.
Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 0405006433.
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 31st day of May 2006, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On April 7, 2006, the Court received Devon Drummond's notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated February 28, 2006, 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 30, 2006.
(2) The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Drummond to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. Drummond filed a response to the notice to show cause on April 18, 2006. He states that, although he received a copy of the Superior Court's order on March 9, he was unable to timely file his notice appeal because he had been sent to solitary confinement for a disciplinary infraction and he did not have access to his personal documents.
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (ii).
(3) The State has filed a reply to Drummond's response. The State contends that Drummond's explanation is insufficient to excuse his untimely filing because his failure to file his notice of appeal in a timely manner is not attributable in any way to court personnel.
(4) 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).
(5) There is nothing in the record to reflect that Drummond'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.