Case Title: LaBoy v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 382, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 7, 2003 
Decided: 
October 27, 2003 
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of October 2003, upon consideration of the notice to show 
cause and the parties’ responses thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Arturo Laboy, filed this appeal on August 4, 2003 from 
the Superior Court’s order, dated July 1, 2003, denying Laboy’s motion for 
postconviction relief.  The Clerk of the Court issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 29(b), directing Laboy to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed for his failure to file the appeal within the thirty-day limitations period. 1   
                                                 
1 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 147 (1999); DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6(a)(iii) (2003). 
ARTURO LABOY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 382, 2003 
§  
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 93003649DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
2
(2) 
In his response, Laboy contends that prison procedures are the cause 
for the delay in his filing the notice of appeal.  Laboy acknowledges that he 
received the Superior Court’s final order on July 4, 2003.  He further 
acknowledges that he did not mail out his notice of appeal until July 29, 2003.  
Laboy nonetheless asserts that the prison is responsible for his notice of appeal not 
being timely filed because, as a pro se litigant, Laboy contends he needed help 
researching and writing his notice of appeal.  Moreover, Laboy appears to assert 
that, because he mailed his notice of appeal before the July 31 filing deadline, the 
prison mail system is responsible for it not being timely received in the Clerk’s 
office. 
 
(3) 
We find no merit to Laboy’s contention.  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Clerk’s office within the applicable time period in order to invoke 
this Court’s appellate jurisdiction.  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a 
failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of the statute and 
court rule.2  Unless Laboy can establish that the failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered. 3 
                                                 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
 
 
3
(4) 
By Laboy’s own admission, the delay in this case is not 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.  Laboy’s 
appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal is 
DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
Justice