Opinion
No. 205, 2007.
December 20, 2007.
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County, Cr. ID 0208005710.
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 6th day of June 2007, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On April 24, 2007, the Court received appellant's notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated March 22, 2007, 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 April 23, 2007.
(2) The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing appellant 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, 2007. He asserts that he does not understand English very well and the inmate who was helping him prepare his appeal papers moved. He contends that he placed his notice of appeal in a mailbox located within the correctional facility, but the mail bag was not taken out. He asks that his appeal not be dismissed because of the actions of correctional officials.
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii).
(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. 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).
(4) Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal in this case is not 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, unfortunately, 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.