Case Title: Clarke v. Clarke

Citation: 

Docket Number: 368, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-07-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ERIC F. CLARKE,1  
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
TAMMY C. CLARKE,  
 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 368, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN99-10284 
§  Petition No. 12-27092 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 22, 2013 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 26, 2013 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 26th day of July 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On July 11, 2013, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from an order of the Family Court, dated and docketed on May 6, 
2013, which dismissed his untimely request for review of a commissioner’s 
order.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the 
Family Court’s order should have been filed on or before June 5, 2013. 
 
(2) 
On July 11, 2013, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Rule 
29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated July 12, 2013.  
SUPR. CT. R. 7(d). 
 
2
dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on July 22, 2013.  The appellant states that he disagrees with his 
treatment by the Family Court and the Delaware State Police.  The appellant 
provides no other explanation for filing an untimely notice of appeal. 
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (i), a notice of appeal 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 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 comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.4  Unless the 
appellant can demonstrate that his 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 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 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