Case Title: Paczkowski v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 8, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
 
JOSEPH S. PACZKOWSKI, 
 
      
Defendant Below, 
      
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
      
Plaintiff Below, 
      
Appellee. 
 
 
  No. 8, 2001 
 
Court Below:  Superior Court of    
the State of Delaware in and for     
Sussex County 
 
Cr. A. No. 99-05-0080 
Cr. ID No. 9904022327 
 
 
Submitted:  March 9, 2001 
Decided: 
 March 16, 2001 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 16th day of March 2001, upon consideration of the notice of appeal 
filed by Joseph S. Paczkowski (“Paczkowski”), an inmate at the Sussex 
Correctional Institution; the Clerk’s notice to show cause; and Paczkowski’s 
response to the notice, it appears to the Court that: 
 (1)  On January 3, 2001, the Court received Paczkowski’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s sentence imposed August 19, 1999.  A timely 
 
 
 
 
2 
notice of appeal from the August 19, 1999, sentence should have been filed on 
or before September 20, 1999.1 
(2)  On January 4, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 29(b), directing Paczkowski to show cause why the appeal should 
not be dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal.  Paczkowski filed a 
response to the notice to show cause on March 9, 2001.  He did not address the 
issue of the untimely filing of the notice of 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.4  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.5       
(4)  Furthermore, Paczkowski is aware of the rule for filing a timely 
notice of appeal.  He has previously attempted to file an untimely appeal from 
the Superior Court’s August 19, 1999, sentence and that case was dismissed for 
                                                          
 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
2 Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 6; Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
 
 
 
 
3 
the reasons stated herein.  See Paczkowski v. State, Del. Supr., No. 490, 2000, 
Steele, J. (Nov. 27, 2000) (Order). 
(5)  There is nothing in the record that reflects that Paczkowski’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. 
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 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                             
5 Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).