Title: Forehand v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEVIN L. FOREHAND,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
          Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 407, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0809000884 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 15, 2011 
Decided: August 19, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 19th day of August 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On August 5, 2011, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated and docketed on June 10, 
2011, which denied his motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from that order should have 
been filed on or before July 11, 2011. 
 
(2) 
On August 5, 2011, the Clerk issued a notice 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 August 
 
2
15, 2011.  The appellant states that he did not receive notice, and was not 
aware, that his notice of appeal was due on or before July 11, 2011.   
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (iii), a notice of appeal in any proceeding 
for postconviction relief must be filed within 30 days after entry upon the 
docket of the judgment or order being appealed.  Time is a jurisdictional 
requirement.1  A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk 
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 of Rule 6.3  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.4 
 
(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 
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. 
 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice