Title: Livingston v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RYAN J. LIVINGSTON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 475, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1109013897 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: September 10, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 12, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of September 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On August 28, 2012, the Court received the appellant’s notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s July 27, 2012 sentencing order.1  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the July 
27, 2012 order should have been filed on or before August 27, 2012. 
 
(2) 
On August 28, 2012, 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 
                                                 
1 The Superior Court docket reflects that sentence was imposed and the sentencing order 
was signed on July 27, 2012. 
 
2
show cause on September 10, 2012.  The appellant states that his notice of 
appeal was untimely due to complications and inefficiencies at the prison.   
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (ii), a notice of appeal from the 
imposition of sentence must be filed within 30 days of the date sentence is 
imposed.  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 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 may not be 
considered.5 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the 
appellant’s failure to file a timely notice 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. 
 
                                                 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5 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/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice