Case Title: Teat v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 229, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT TEAT, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 229, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for  New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0808020520 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 29, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 24, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 24th day of May 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 22, 2010, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated January 14, 2010, which denied 
appellant’s pro se motion for modification of sentence.  Pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before 
February 15, 2010. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2- 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on April 29, 2010.  He asserts that nobody informed him of the 
deadline for taking an appeal.  He asks the Court to excuse his untimely 
filing in the interests of justice.  
(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 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.5 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record to reflect that appellant’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. 
                                                 
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). 
 
 
-3- 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice