Opinion
No. 215 2012.
2012-07-16
Alfred Maurice LEWIS, Jr., Defendant Below–Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below–Appellee.
Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr. ID 0812009803.
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
RANDY J. HOLLAND, Justice.
This 16th day of July 2012, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On April 23, 2012, this Court received appellant Alfred Lewis' notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, docketed March 13, 2012, denying his motion for postconviction relief. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before April 12, 2012.
(2) The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Lewis to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. Appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on May 3, 2012. He asserts that his appeal should not be deemed late because he mailed it in time but that it was twice returned to him for insufficient postage and possible and insufficient address. Lewis seems to suggest that any delay in the Clerk's receipt of his materials should not be held against him because he tried to file in a timely manner. The State has filed an answer in opposition to appellant's response.
Del.Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2012).
(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. This Court recently reaffirmed its holding that an appellant's pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 10 Del. C. § 147 and Delaware Supreme Court Rule 6. Unless an 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) (2012).
Smith v. State, 2012 WL 2821889, ––– A.3d –––– (Del. July 10, 2012); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del.1979).
(4) There is nothing to reflect that Lewis' failure to timely file his notice of appeal in this case is attributable in any way to court personnel. Accordingly, 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.
Zuppo v. State, 2011 WL 761523 (Del. Mar. 3, 2011) (holding that prison court personnel).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.