JOYNER v. BAILEY WETZEL, 782 A.2d 265 (Del. 2001)

Joyner v. Bailey Wetzel.

No. 351, 2001.Supreme Court of Delaware.
Decided: August 30, 2001.

Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 00C-02-216

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Unpublished Opinion is below.

BRUCE S. JOYNER, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. BAILEY WETZEL, P.A., Defendant Below, Appellee. No. 351, 2001. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: August 13, 2001. Decided: August 30, 2001.

Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 00C-02-216

Before WALSH, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.

ORDER
This 30th day of August 2001, it appears to the Court that:

1. On July 26, 2001, the Court received the plaintiff Bruce Joyner’s untimely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s Opinion decided May 23, 2001, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before June 22, 2001.

2. On July 31, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Joyner to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. Joyner filed his response to the notice to show cause on August 13, 2001.

3. Joyner provides no explanation why he did not timely file his appeal. His arguments appear to address the merits of the appeal.

4. We are not persuaded by Joyner’s contentions. Time is a jurisdictional requirement. Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 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 Joyner can demonstrate that the 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 to reflect that Joyner’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.