Title: Oliver v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYRELL H. OLIVER,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 617, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 89S00742DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                        Submitted:  November 28, 2011 
 
Decided:      December 2, 2011 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 2nd day of December 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) On November 14, 2011, the Court received the appellant’s notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated September 12, 2011 and 
docketed on September 13, 2011, which denied the appellant’s request for 
relief from the requirements of the sex offender registration statute.  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order should have been filed on or before October 13, 
2011. 
 
(2) On November 15, 2011, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not 
 
2
be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed a response to the notice 
to show cause on November 28, 2011.  The appellant states that he is 
representing himself and was not aware of the deadline for the timely filing 
of a notice of appeal. 
 
(3) Pursuant to Rule 6(a)(iii), 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.1  A notice of appeal must be received 
by the Clerk of the Court 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 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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
         Justice