Case Title: Kelly v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 53, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-03-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AARON L. KELLY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 53, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0506001186 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 23, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: March 28, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of March 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 6, 2007, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order dated November 27, 2006.  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on 
or before December 27, 2006. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed for being untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (ii). 
 
 
-2-
to show cause on February 23, 2007.  His response does not address the 
timeliness of his notice of appeal and instead raises issues regarding the 
substantive merit of his 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 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. 
                                                 
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/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice