No. 313, 1999.Supreme Court of Delaware.
August 10, 1999.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Sussex County, CrA S99-02-0016-0018.
APPEAL DISMISSED
Unpublished Opinion is below.
JAMES F. BRADLEY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 313, 1999. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: July 27, 1999. Decided: August 10, 1999.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County, Cr. A. Nos. S99-02-0016 through 0018, Cr. ID No. 9901022472.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HARTNETT andBERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 10th day of August 1999, it appears to the Court that:
On July 15, 1999, the Court received the appellant’s untimely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s sentence of June 3, 1999. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before July 6, 1999.
On July 19, 1999, 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’s response to the notice to show cause was filed on July 27, 1999.
The appellant’s response to the notice to show cause states that his attorney failed to file an automatic appeal. His other arguments are considered to be non-responsive as they appear to address the merits of the appeal. Time is a jurisdictional requirement. Carr v. State, ___ Del. ___, 554 A.2d 778, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme 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, supra. Unless the appellant can demonstrate that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered. Bey v. State, ___ Del. ___, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).
There is nothing in the record that reflects 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 Rules 6 and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
Carolyn Berger Justice