Case Title: Steele v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 314, 2014

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-07-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
FREDERICK STEELE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 314, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1201006944 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 9, 2014 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 21, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 21st day of July 2014, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 13, 2014, the Court received appellant Frederick Steele’s 
notice of appeal from a Superior Court sentencing order dated February 1, 2013.  
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Steele to show cause why the 
appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file his notice of appeal within 
thirty days of sentencing.1   
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
 
 
-2-
(2) 
Steele filed a response to the notice to show cause on July 9, 2014.  
The response addresses the underlying merits of his appeal but does not address his 
failure to file his appeal in a timely manner.  
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  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.3  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to 
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  
Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.5 
(4) 
In this case, Steele does not assert that his untimely filing 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/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).