Case Title: Conover v State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 363, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-09-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
ADOLPH CONOVER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 363, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9604003388  
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 7, 2004 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 28, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of September 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 23, 2004, the Court received appellant Adolph 
Conover=s notice of appeal from a Superior Court sentencing order, which 
was dated May 13, 2004 and docketed June 8, 2004.  Pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the sentencing order should 
have been filed on or before June 14, 2004. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing Conover to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2-
dismissed as untimely.1  Conover filed a response to the notice to show 
cause on August 30, 2004.  Conover contends that his appeal is untimely 
because the Prothonotary did not send him a copy of the sentencing order 
until August 11, 2004.  The State filed a reply in response to Conover’s 
contention.  The State contends that the 30-day appeal period in Conover’s 
case began to run on May 13, the day Superior Court pronounced his 
sentence, without regard to when the sentencing order was docketed or 
received.  We agree. 2  
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3  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.4  An appellant=s pro se status does not 
excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 
Supreme Court Rule 6.5  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.6 
                                                 
1Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
2 See Eller v. State, 531 A.2d 951 (Del. 1987). 
3Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829(1989). 
4Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
6Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3-
(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. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice