Case Title: Drummond v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 225, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYRONE DRUMMOND,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 225, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0606022334 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 5, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    May 12, 2009 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of May 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On April 20, 2009, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order dated and docketed on March 5, 
2009, which denied his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 61.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice 
of appeal from the March 5, 2009 order should have been filed on or before 
April 6, 2006, within 30 days after entry upon the docket of the order being 
appealed.1 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 
 
2 
 
(2) 
On April 20, 2009, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause 
why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant 
filed his response to the notice to show cause on May 5, 2009.  The 
appellant, who is incarcerated, states that he did not receive the order in the 
mail until May 12, began working full-time in the kitchen on May 17, and 
could not get to the law library until April 16, 2009.   
 
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of appeal must 
be received by the Office of the Clerk of the Court within the applicable 
time period in order to be effective.3  An appellant’s pro se status does not 
excuse a failure to strictly comply 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 cannot 
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 in this case is attributable 
to court-related personnel.  Consequently, this case does not fall within the 
                                                 
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 
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. 
 
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