RICHARDSON v. STATE, 758 A.2d 934 (Del. 2000)

MICHAEL J. RICHARDSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

No. 365, 2000Supreme Court of Delaware.
Decided: August 16, 2000

Superior (Kent) Cr 0003010856.

Affirmed.

Unpublished Opinion is below.

MICHAEL J. RICHARDSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 365, 2000 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: August 10, 2000 Decided: August 16, 2000

Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.

ORDER
This 16th day of August 2000, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On July 26, 2000, the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal from a June 19, 2000, sentence of Superior Court, docketed June 19, 2000, along with a letter requesting a two-day extension of time to file the notice of appeal. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from a June 19, 2000, sentence should have been filed on or before July 19, 2000.

(2) On July 26, 2000, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal from the June 19, 2000, sentence should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The appellant filed his response to the notice to show cause on August 10, 2000. Appellant contends in his response that he thought his Public Defender had filed a notice of appeal, and that when he found out that he had not done so, he wrote his own notice of appeal.

(3) 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 the appellant 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).

(4) 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 Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.