Case Title: Evans v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 423, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-10-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
  WILLIAM JOHN EVANS,
Plaintiff Below,
Appellant,
v.
 STATE OF DELAWARE and      
 DEPARTMENT OF                    
 CORRECTION,
Defendants Below,
Appellees.
      No. 423, 2001
      Court Below:  Superior Court  
     of the State of Delaware in and
     for Kent County
      C.A. No. 00C-10-002
Submitted:  September 19, 2001
Decided:
  October 15, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 15th day of October 2001, upon consideration of the notice of
appeal filed by William John Evans; the notice to show cause issued by the
Clerk; and the response by Mr. Evans to the notice to show cause, it appears
to the Court that:
 (1)  On September 4, 2001, the Court received Mr. Evans’ notice of
appeal from the Superior Court’s Order dated July 31, 2001.  A timely notice
2
of appeal from an Order dated July 31, 2001, should have been filed on or
before August 30, 2001.
(2)  On September 5, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Evans to show cause why the appeal
should not be dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal.  Evans
filed a response to the notice to show cause on September 19, 2001.  In his
response, Evans contends that due to his transfer from Delaware Correctional
Center to Central Violation Center, compounded by an order from security
staff to get rid of most of his legal material, he was unable to file his notice
of appeal sooner than he did.  He states that he dropped off his notice of
appeal in the institutional mailbox on August 25, 2001.
(3)  Evans’ contentions are unavailing.  This Court has previously
considered and refused to create a separate “mailbox rule” for prisoners.1 
Any delay caused by the prison mail system cannot justify an enlargement
of the 30-day appeal period.2   
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
2 Dunham v. State, Del. Supr., No. 407, 1986, Horsey, J., 1987 WL 36709 (Feb. 24, 1987) (ORDER).
3
(4)  Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3  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.4  An appellant's pro se status does not excuse
a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements.5  Unless an
appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is
attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.6    
(5)  There is nothing in the record that reflects that Evans’ 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 
                                                 
3 Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
4 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
5 Supr. Ct. R. 6; Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.
6 Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).
4
Justice