Case Title: Ismaaeel v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 59, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MAAHIR B. ISMAAEEL, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 59, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0304002130 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 22, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 2, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justice . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 2nd day of  April 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
In November 2006, Ismaaeel filed his second motion for 
postconviction relief.  The Superior Court denied the motion by order dated 
January 4, 2007, which was docketed on January 5, 2007.  Ismaaeel filed his 
notice of appeal in this Court on February 8, 2007.  Pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the January 5, 2007 order 
should have been filed on or before February 5, 2007. 
 
(2) 
On February 12, 2007, 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.  Ismaaeel filed his 
 
2
response to the notice to show cause on February 15, 2007.  He states that he 
did not receive the Superior Court’s decision until January 19, 2007 and, 
therefore, the appeal was filed within the required 30-day period.  Pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule 6, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days 
after entry upon the docket of the judgment or order being appealed. 
 
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  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.2  An appellant’s pro se status does not 
excuse a failure to strictly comply with the jurisdictional requirements of 
Supreme Court 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 reflecting that Ismaaeel’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. 
                                                 
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). 
 
3
 
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