No. 390, 1999.Supreme Court of Delaware.
September 20, 1999.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Sussex County, CrA VS9610-00-26-1, Cr 9609016215.
APPEAL DISMISSED
Unpublished Opinion is below.
PAUL LEE DEPUTY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 390, 1999. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: August 31, 1999. Decided: September 20, 1999.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County Cr. A. No. VS9610-00-26-1 and Cr. I.D. No. 9609016215
Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices.
JOSEPH T. WALSH, Justice
ORDER
This 20th day of September 1999, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On August 27, 1999, the Court received the appellant’s untimely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s violation of probation sentencing order on June 14, 1999. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before July 14, 1999. On August 27, 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.
(2) The appellant filed on September 8, 1999 a document entitled “Motion to Expedite” and filed on September 10, 1999, a document entitled “Imperative Emergency Motion.” Neither document appears to respond to the notice to show cause. If appellant intended his documents to be a response to the notice to show cause, they are considered to be non-responsive since they appear to address the merits of the appeal.
(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement. Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 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).
(4) 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. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).
(5) 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.