Case Title: Rucinski v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 473, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MELLISA RUCINSKI, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 473, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0207003805 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 8, 2004 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 14, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 14th day of December 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 22, 2004, the Court received the appellant=s notice 
of appeal from a Superior Court order dated September 13, 2004 denying her 
motion for correction of sentence.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a 
timely notice of appeal from the September 13, 2004 order should have been 
filed on or before October 13, 2004. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2-
dismissed as untimely filed.1  The appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on November 8, 2004.  She contends that her appeal is untimely 
because she was unable to receive timely assistance from the law library 
clerk in the correctional institution where she is housed.  She asks the Court 
to waive the 30-day filing requirement.  
(3) 
Time, however, 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, her appeal cannot be considered.5 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record that reflects 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 
                                                 
1Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (ii). 
2Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829(1989). 
3Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979). 
 
 
-3-
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/Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-4-
oc: 
Clerk (orig. +3) 
xc: 
Hon. Richard F. Stokes 
Ms. Mellisa Rucinski, WCI 
Kim E. Ayvazian, Esq. 
Justices (8) 
D. Collins 
P. Naylor 
Law Clerk 
File