Case Title: Fisher v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 110, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-03-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEE ROYAL FISHER,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 110, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 08M-12-127 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 16, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: March 18, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 18th day of March 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On March 3, 2009, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated and docketed on January 15, 
2009, which dismissed his civil complaint on the ground of legal 
frivolousness.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal 
from the January 15, 2009, order should have been filed on or before 
February 16, 2009. 
 
(2) 
On March 4, 2009, 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.  The appellant filed his 
response to the notice to show cause on March 16, 2009.  The appellant, who 
is incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, states that he 
was severely beaten on January 26, 2009, was placed in isolation, and was 
not released from isolation until February 22, 2009.  He further states that he 
did not receive his legal papers until February 26, 2009, at which time he 
was able to file his appeal. 
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty 
days after entry upon the docket of the judgment or order being appealed.  
Moreover, time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Office of the Clerk of the Court within the applicable time 
period in order to be effective.2  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse 
a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.3  
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.4 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the 
appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel.  Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception 
                                          
 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice