Opinion
No. 614, 2001
Decided: January 7, 2002
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. IN00-10-0257 RI
Appeal Dismissed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
CHARLES E. SMITH a/k/a EDWARD SMITH, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 614, 2001 Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Decided: January 7, 2002
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
Carolyn Berger, Justice:
ORDER
This 7th day of January 2002, upon consideration of the notice of appeal filed by the defendant-appellant, Charles E. Smith a/k/a Edward Smith, the notice to show cause issued by the Clerk, and Smith's response to the notice, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On December 4, 2001, the Court received Smith's notice of appeal from the October 31, 2001 order of the Superior Court denying his motion for postconviction relief. A timely notice of appeal from an order dated October 31, 2001 should have been filed on or before November 30, 2001.
(2) On December 6, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Smith to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file a timely appeal. Smith filed a response to the notice to show cause on December 18, 2001. In his response, he states that he is unfamiliar with Supreme Court procedure and that the issues he raises are worthy of review.
(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. Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal can not be considered.
Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
Supr. Ct. R. 6; Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.
Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).
(4) There is nothing in the record that reflects that Smith'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.