Case Title: Brousell v. Delaware Board of Mental Health and Chemical Dependency Professionals

Citation: 

Docket Number: 45, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-02-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICHARD BROUSELL, 
 
 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DELAWARE BOARD OF 
MENTAL HEALTH AND 
CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY 
PROFESSIONALS, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 45, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  C.A. No. N20A-01-002 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 18, 2022 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: February 23, 2022 
 
Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s 
response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 10, 2022, the appellant, Richard Brousell, filed a notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s April 14, 2021 opinion affirming the decision of 
the Delaware Board of Mental Health and Chemical Dependency Professionals to 
revoke Brousell’s license to practice as a professional counselor of mental health.  
Supreme Court Rule 6 provides that a civil appeal must be filed within thirty days 
of the lower court’s order.1 
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i). 
2 
 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Brousell to show cause 
why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In his response to the 
notice to show cause, Brousell states that (i) he believed he needed an attorney to 
file an appeal and he was unable to find—or afford—one within the thirty-day appeal 
window and (ii) he lacked the funds to pay the Court’s filing fee.   
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3  An 
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply strictly with the 
jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.4  Unless an appellant can demonstrate that his 
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, the 
appeal cannot be considered.5   
(4) 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the Court may authorize the 
commencement of an appeal without the prepayment of fees if a party claiming to 
be indigent files an application with the Court.6   In any event, Brousell does not 
allege that his 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 
 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 See Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 2012). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
6 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 20(h). 
3 
 
to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal, and this 
appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice