Opinion
No. 47, 2012
02-28-2012
JOHNNY R. HONAKER, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Court—Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County Cr. ID No. 0212006828
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices
ORDER
This 28th day of February 2012, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On February 15, 2012, the Court received the appellant's notice of appeal from the Superior Court's May 7, 2003 sentencing order. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the May 7, 2003 order should have been filed on or before June 6, 2003.
(2) On February 15, 2012, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The appellant filed his response to the notice to show cause on February 24, 2012. The appellant states that he was incarcerated at the time the crime allegedly occurred and he believes his attorney provided ineffective assistance.
(3) Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (ii), a notice of appeal from a sentencing order must be filed within 30 days of the date sentence is imposed. 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 comply strictly 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 may not 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 this appeal must be dismissed.
The appellant's complaints appear to fall within the parameters of a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.
--------
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
Randy J. Holland
Justice