Title: Worthy v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRUCE E. WORTHY, JR.,  
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 661, 2013 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§ 
§  Cr. ID No. 0911004655 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  December 12, 2013 
  Decided:  December 30, 2013 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 30th day of December 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) On December 4, 2013, the Court received the appellant’s notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s violation of probation (“VOP”) 
sentencing order, which was signed and docketed on November 1, 2013.  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the 
November 1, 2013 VOP sentencing order should have been filed on or 
before December 2, 2013. 
 
(2) On December 4, 2013, 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 
 
2
show cause on December 12, 2013.  The appellant states that his appeal was 
untimely because he had insufficient time in the library to work on it.   
 
(3) Pursuant to Rule 6(a)(ii), a notice of appeal from a VOP 
sentencing order must be filed within 30 days of the date the sentence is 
imposed.  Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  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.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.  The Court therefore 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