Opinion
No. 229, 2000.
Decided: June 5, 2000.
Superior CA 00M-03-108.
Appeal dismissed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
GARY L. LLOYD, Petitioner Below, Appellant, v. ROBERT SNYDER, THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents Below, Appellees. No. 229, 2000. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: May 26, 2000. Decided: June 5, 2000.
Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County; in C.A. No. 00M-03-108.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HARTNETT and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 5th day of June 2000, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On May 16, 2000, the Court received the appellant's untimely notice of appeal from the order of the Superior Court dated April 5, 2000, docketed April 5, 2000, denying the petitioners application for habeas corpus. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before May 5, 2000.
(2) On May 16, 2000, 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 his response to the notice to show cause on May 26, 2000. The appellant asserts that he is neither trained nor competent to understand the complexity of the laws of this State. He further asserts that an appointment had been requested at the correctional center law library to perfect his appeal, but due to overcrowding was never given an appointment. The appellant also states that he has no direct control over the mailing process in the prison.
(3) Appellant's position is without merit. 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. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). An appellant's pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6. Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered. Bey v. State, Del.Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).
(4) The appellant's last argument is also not persuasive. The Court has previously considered and refused to create a separate "mailbox rule" for prisoners. Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). Any delay caused by the prison mail system cannot justify an enlargement of the thirty-day period.
(5) There is nothing in the record to support 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.