Case Title: Lamour v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 584, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-11-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
OBENS LAMOUR,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 584, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0210002672 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: November 14, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 18, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 18th day of November 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On November 5, 2013, the Court received the appellant’s notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated and docketed on September 
11, 2013, which denied the appellant’s motion for sentence modification.  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the 
Superior Court’s September 11, 2013 order should have been filed on or 
before October 11, 2013. 
 
(2) 
On November 5, 2013, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not 
be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed his response on 
 
2
November 14, 2013.  The appellant states that his untimely filing should be 
excused because he mistakenly filed a timely appeal in the Superior Court.   
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (iii), a notice of appeal must be filed in 
the Supreme Court within 30 days after entry upon the Superior Court 
docket of the judgment or order being appealed.  Time is a jurisdictional 
requirement.1  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.2  An 
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the 
jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.3  Unless the appellant can demonstrate 
that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal may not be considered.4 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the 
appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal in this Court 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 this appeal must be 
dismissed. 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice