Case Title: Pena v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 390, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-08-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RAFAEL PENA,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
          Plaintiff Below- 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 390, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0707026365 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 26, 2011 
Decided: August 31, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 31st day of August 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On August 1, 2011, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated June 20, 2011 and docketed 
on June 21, 2011, which denied his motion to modify sentence.  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on 
or before July 21, 2011. 
 
(2) 
On August 2, 2011, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Rule 
29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed his response on August 26, 
2011.  In his response, he states that his appeal is timely if Saturdays, 
 
2
Sundays and holidays are not counted.  Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (iii), a notice 
of appeal in any proceeding for postconviction relief must be filed within 30 
days after entry upon the docket of the judgment or order being appealed. 
 
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  A notice of appeal must 
be received by the Office of the Clerk 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 of Rule 6.3  Unless the 
appellant can demonstrate that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is 
attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal may not be considered.4 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the 
appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal 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 this appeal must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).