Case Title: Birowski v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 201, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-06-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSEPH F. BIROWSKI, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 201, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 9808009468 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 3, 2007 
 
Decided: 
June 6, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 6th day of June 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 23, 2007, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated February 13, 2007, which denied 
his motion for modification of sentence.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, 
a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before March 15, 
2007. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2-
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on May 3, 2007.  He asserts that he was not aware of the time 
limitation.  He asks the Court to excuse his untimely filing and accept his 
appeal.   
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  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.3  An appellant’s pro se status does not 
excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of 
Supreme Court 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) 
Appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal in this case 
is not 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, unfortunately, that 
the within appeal must be dismissed. 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3-
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