Case Title: Kokotaylo v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 562, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-11-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEVEN KOKOTAYLO,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
                     Plaintiff Below- 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 562, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0712029663 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: November 21, 2011 
   
Decided:  November 29, 2011 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 29th day of November 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) On November 3, 2011, the Court received the appellant’s notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated and docketed June 30, 
2011, which denied his motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the June 30, 2011 
order should have been filed on or before August 1, 2011. 
 
(2) On November 4, 2011, 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 a response to the notice to 
show cause on November 21, 2011.  In the response, the appellant states that 
 
2
he gave his notice of appeal to correctional officers for mailing on or about 
July 5, 2011.  The appellant provides no supporting documentation for his 
statement.1   
 
(3) Pursuant to Rule 6(a)(iii), a notice of appeal in any proceeding 
for postconviction relief must be filed within 30 days after entry upon the 
docket of the judgment or order being appealed.  Time is a jurisdictional 
requirement.2  A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk 
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 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 may not be considered.5 
 
(4) There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the 
appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal 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 In a letter directed to the Clerk filed on October 20, 2011, the appellant requests a status 
report on his appeal, which he states was submitted on August 13, 2011. 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5 Bey 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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
  
 
        Justice