Case Title: Rampmeyer v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 212, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  ROBERT B. RAMPMEYER,
Defendant Below,
Appellant,
v.
  STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below,
Appellee.
      No. 212, 2001
      Court Below:  Superior Court  
     of the State of Delaware in and
     for Kent County
      Cr. A. No. IK98-08-0484
      Cr. ID No. 9808014797
Submitted:  May 17, 2001
Decided:
 May 24, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 24th day of May 2001, upon consideration of the notice of appeal
filed by Robert B. Rampmeyer; the notice to show cause issued by the Clerk’s
office; and Rampmeyer’s response to the notice to show cause, it appears to
the Court that:
 (1)  On May 7, 2001, the Court received Rampmeyer’s notice of
appeal from the Superior Court’s Order denying defendant’s motion for
modification of conditions of sentence dated and docketed March 29, 2001.
2
 A timely notice of appeal from a Superior Court decision of March 29, 2001,
should have been filed on or before April 30, 2001.
(2)  On May 7, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 29(b), directing Rampmeyer to show cause why the appeal should
not be dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal.  Rampmeyer filed
a response to the notice to show cause on May 17, 2001.  In his response,
Rampmeyer stated that he did not receive the Superior Court’s Order until on
or about April 5th.  He does not address the question of why he did not file his
appeal until May 7th.
(3)  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.3  Unless an
appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
3 Supr. Ct. R. 6; Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.
3
attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.4    
(4)  There is nothing in the record that reflects that Rampmeyer’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 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/Joseph T. Walsh   
Justice
                                                 
4 Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).