Title: Bruton v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AARON E. BRUTON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 125, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0102022958 and 
§  0102022251 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 14, 2005 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 17, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice,  JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 17th day of May 2005, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 1, 2005, the Court received the appellant=s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order dated February 28, 2005.  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the February 28, 2005 
order should have been filed on or before March 30, 2005. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  The appellant filed a response to the notice to 
                                                 
1Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (ii). 
 
 
-2-
show cause on April 14, 2005.  The appellant contends that he placed his 
notice of appeal in the prison mail on March 26.  The appellant appears to 
argue that his notice of appeal should be considered filed on the date he 
mailed it.  
(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) 
There is nothing in the record that reflects that 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 the within appeal must be dismissed. 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829(1989). 
3Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979). 
 
 
-3-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice