Case Title: Simms v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 613, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

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

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JEFFREY ALONZO SIMMS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
                     Plaintiff Below- 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 613, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1011003445 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: November 18, 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 10, 2011, the Court received the appellant’s notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s April 5, 2011 sentencing order.1  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the 
Superior Court’s sentencing order should have been filed on or before May 
5, 2011.2   
                                                 
1 The appellant also appeals from the Superior Court’s denial of his postconviction 
motion.  However, the Superior Court docket reflects that the Superior Court has not yet 
decided the motion and, in fact, returned the motion to the appellant on November 16, 
2011, due to his noncompliance with Superior Court Rule 61. 
2 The Superior Court docket reflects that the appellant, who represented himself at trial,  
initially filed his appeal in the Superior Court on May 18, 2011, thirteen days beyond the 
due date. 
 
2
 
(2) On November 10, 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 his response to the notice 
to show cause on November 18, 2011.  The appellant states only that he has 
sent a copy of the notice to an attorney.3   
 
(3) Pursuant to Rule 6(a)(ii), a notice of appeal from a sentencing 
order must be filed within 30 days of the date the sentence is imposed.  Time 
is a jurisdictional requirement.4  A notice of appeal must be received by the 
Clerk of the Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.5  
An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with 
the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.6  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.7 
 
(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 
                                                 
3 While the appellant states in his notice of appeal that he was not aware until November 
2011 that his notice of appeal had been filed in the wrong forum, he does not explain why 
his initial notice of appeal was untimely. 
4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
5 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
6 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
7 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 this appeal must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Justice