Case Title: Daniels v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 323, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ELMER DANIELS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 323, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 87002394DI  
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 28, 2013 
Decided:  July 8, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of July 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 19, 2013, the Court received appellant’s notice of appeal 
from a Superior Court order, dated May 16, 2013 and docketed May 17, 2013, 
which denied his motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before June 17, 
2013. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) 
directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as 
 
 
-2-
untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on June 28, 
2013.  His response does not address the untimely filing of his notice of appeal and 
instead presents argument regarding the relative merit of his appeal.     
(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  
The appellant does not argue that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal in this 
case is attributable to court-related personnel.5  Thus, this case does not fall within 
the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of 
appeal.  The appeal, therefore, 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/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).