Title: Ross v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ELWOOD J. ROSS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 618, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1012018727 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                 
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 and docketed on September 
16, 2011, which denied his motion for sentence modification.  Pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the September 16, 
2011 order should have been filed on or before October 17, 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 
be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed his response to the notice 
to show cause on November 28, 2011.  The appellant states that the Public 
 
2
Defender would not file an appeal on his behalf and that he mailed his notice 
of appeal in early August 2011. 
 
(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 his 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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
        Justice