Case Title: Kamara v. Watchen Nelson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 448, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
JAMES M. KAMARA, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
WATCHEN NELSON and ANDRE 
DASTINOT, 
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 448, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 08C-07-058 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 3, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 25, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 25th day of September 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 6, 2009, the Court received appellant James 
Kamara’s notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated June 30, 2009, 
which entered a judgment in favor of plaintiffs following a bench trial.  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have 
been filed on or before July 30, 2009. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing Kamara to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2- 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Kamara filed a response to the notice to show 
cause on August 25, 2009.  He asserts that he formed a timely intention to 
appeal by hiring a lawyer, whom he does not identify, to pursue the appeal 
on his behalf.  Kamara contends that, unbeknownst to him, the lawyer failed 
to file the appeal because his law license had expired.  Kamara also contends 
that he mistakenly believed he had thirty days to file the appeal from the 
date he received the Superior Court’s decision on July 13, 2009.  He asks the 
Court to excuse his mistakes and permit his appeal to proceed. 
(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 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i). 
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- 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record to reflect that Kamara’s failure to 
file a timely notice of appeal in this case is attributable to anyone but 
himself.  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. 
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