Title: Stickel v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FREDERICK G. STICKEL,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
          Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 295, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court of  
§  the State of Delaware, in and for 
§  New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0709032243 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: June 24, 2011 
 
Decided:  June 30, 2011 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 30th day of June 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On June 10, 2011, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s April 26, 2011 violation of probation 
(“VOP”) sentence.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of 
appeal should have been filed on or before May 26, 2011.   
 
(2) 
On June 13, 2011, the Clerk of the Court 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 June 24, 2011.  He states that his appeal was 
timely because he mailed his notice of appeal on May 25, 2011. 
 
2
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (ii), a notice of appeal must be filed 
within 30 days of the date a VOP sentence is imposed.  Time is a 
jurisdictional requirement.1  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.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 cannot 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 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. 
 
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  
 
                                                 
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).