PACZKOWSKI v. STATE, 8 (Del.Supr. 3-16-2001)

No. 8, 2001.Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: March 9, 2001.
Decided: March 16, 2001.

Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County Cr. A. No. 99-05-0080, Cr. ID No. 9904022327.

Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.

ORDER
This 16th day of March 2001, upon consideration of the notice of appeal filed by Joseph S. Paczkowski (“Paczkowski”), an inmate at the Sussex Correctional Institution; the Clerk’s notice to show cause; and Paczkowski’s response to the notice, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On January 3, 2001, the Court received Paczkowski’s notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s sentence imposed August 19, 1999. A timely notice of appeal from the August 19, 1999, sentence should have been filed on or before September 20, 1999.[1]

(2) On January 4, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Paczkowski to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Paczkowski filed a response to the notice to show cause on March 9, 2001. He did not address the issue of the untimely filing of the notice of appeal.

(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.[2] 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.[3] An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements.[4] Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.[5]

(4) Furthermore, Paczkowski is aware of the rule for filing a timely notice of appeal. He has previously attempted to file an untimely appeal from the Superior Court’s August 19, 1999, sentence and that case was dismissed for the reasons stated herein. See Paczkowski v. State, Del. Supr., No. 490, 2000, Steele, J. (Nov. 27, 2000) (Order).

(5) There is nothing in the record that reflects that Paczkowski’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.