Case Title: Matter of Franklin, a disable person

Citation: 

Docket Number: 255, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-06-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF 
DOROTHY FRANKLIN, a 
disable person 
§  No. 255, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.M. No. 18522-K 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 6, 2018 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: June 19, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 10, 2018, the Court received Gerald Franklin’s (“Franklin”) 
notice of appeal from a Court of Chancery order dated August 16, 2017, overruling 
his exceptions and affirming the Master’s Report appointing the Office of the Public 
Guardian as guardian of the person and property of his mother, Dorothy Franklin.  
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice directing Franklin to show cause why his 
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.1  Franklin filed a response to the notice 
to show cause on June 6, 2018.  His response does not address the untimeliness of 
his appeal.   
                                                 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i). 
 
2 
(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 an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal 
is attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.5  This case 
does not fall within that limited exception.  Thus, the Court concludes that the appeal 
must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is 
DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).