Case Title: Smith v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 301, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRENTON L.  SMITH,  
 
§ 
§ 
No.  301, 2002 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in  
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for New Castle County, in 
§ 
IN89-02-1149. 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
Def.  ID No.  30901084DI 
 
Submitted: June 20, 2002 
Decided: 
September 19, 2002 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of September 2002, upon consideration of the notice to 
show cause, the appellant’s response to the notice to show cause, and the 
appellee’s reply to the response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 28, 2002, the appellant, Brenton L. Smith, filed an 
untimely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order of February 22, 
2002, that denied Smith’s motion for modification of sentence.  Smith was 
 
 
2 
required to file the notice of appeal with the Clerk of this Court no later than 
March 25, 2002.1   
(2) 
On May 28, 2002, the Clerk issued a notice directing Smith to 
show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In his 
response to the notice to show cause, as well as in a letter he submitted with his 
untimely notice of appeal, Smith explains that he initially filed the notice of 
appeal in the Superior Court.  According to Smith, the Prothonotary failed to 
inform him of his filing error in a timely manner and thus caused him to file the 
notice of appeal in this Court in an untimely manner. 
(3) 
“‘[T]he appellate jurisdiction of this Court rests wholly upon the 
perfecting of an appeal within the period of limitations fixed by law.’”2  
Contrary to Smith’s contentions, an appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a 
failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements.3 
                                                         
1An appeal must be filed within thirty days after entry upon the docket of the order 
from which the appeal is taken.  Supr.  Ct.  R.  6. 
2Riggs v.  Riggs, Del.  Supr., 539 A.2d 163 (1988) (quoting Fisher v.  Biggs, Del. 
Supr., 284 A.2d 117, 118 (1971)).   
3Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778 (Del.  1989). 
 
 
3 
(4) 
A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of 
this Court within the applicable time period to be effective.4  Filing a notice of 
appeal with the Superior Court Prothonotary does not constitute compliance 
with the Rules of this Court.5  
(5) 
This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal when the notice 
of appeal is not filed in a timely manner, unless the appellant can demonstrate 
that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court related 
personnel.6  In this case, the Court has concluded that the record does not 
support a finding that the delay in filing Smith’s notice of appeal is attributable 
to court-related personnel.  There is no evidence to suggest that the 
Prothonotary 
                                                         
4Supr.  Ct.  R.  10(a). 
5Smith v.  State, 2002 WL 51564 (Del.  Supr.); Fisher v.  State, 1995 WL 715876 
(Del.  Supr.); Semonelle v.  State, 1989 WL 136927 (Del.  Supr.).  
6Bey v.  State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
4 
did anything to lead Smith to believe that his appeal had been perfected.7  
Therefore, Smith’s case does not fall within the exception to the general rule 
which mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. 
                                                         
7Cf.  Riggs v.  Riggs, 539 A.2d 163, 164 (Del.  1988) (excusing delay when there was 
evidence in the record to suggest that the Family Court had led the appellant to believe that 
the appeal had been properly filed in that court). 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice