Opinion
No. 225, 2009.
May 12, 2009.
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County Cr. ID No. 0606022334.
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 12th day of May 2009, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On April 20, 2009, the Court received the appellant's notice of appeal from the Superior Court's order dated and docketed on March 5, 2009, which denied his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the March 5, 2009 order should have been filed on or before April 6, 2006, within 30 days after entry upon the docket of the order being appealed.
Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii).
(2) On April 20, 2009, the Clerk of the Court 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 his response to the notice to show cause on May 5, 2009. The appellant, who is incarcerated, states that he did not receive the order in the mail until May 12, began working full-time in the kitchen on May 17, and could not get to the law library until April 16, 2009.
(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement. A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of the Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective. An appellant's pro se status does not excuse a failure to strictly comply with the jurisdictional requirements of 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. 1989).
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 before us reflecting that the 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.