Case Title: Woodlin v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 284, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-07-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KAREEM WOODLIN,
Defendant Below,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below,
Appellee.
      No. 284, 2001
      Court Below:  Superior Court  
     of the State of Delaware,
       in and for Kent County
      Cr. A. No. VK99-03-0464-02
      Cr. ID No. 9903012554
Submitted:  June 26, 2001
Decided:
 July 11, 2001
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices
O R D E R
This 11th day of July 2001, upon consideration of the notice of appeal
filed by Kareem Woodlin, the notice to show cause issued by the Clerk, and
Woodlin’s response to the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that:
 (1)  On June 19, 2001, the Court received Woodlin’s notice of appeal
from the Superior Court’s resentencing order of March 26, 2001, docketed
April 3, 2001.  A timely notice of appeal from a Superior Court order of
March 26, 2001, docketed April 3, should have been filed on or before May
3, 2001.
2
(2)  On June 19, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 29(b), directing Woodlin to show cause why the appeal should not
be dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal.  Woodlin filed a
response to the notice to show cause on June 26, 2001.  In his response, he
does not address the question of why he did not file his appeal until June 19,
2001.
(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 comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements.3  Unless an
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 that reflects that Woodlin’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
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
3
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
                                                                                                                                                   
3 Supr. Ct. R. 6; Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.
4 Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).