Title: Warren v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
SHANEA WARREN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 385, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 0701016582 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 1, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 13, 2010 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of July 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 23, 2010, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated May 14, 2010, which sentenced 
appellant after finding a violation of probation.  Pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before June 
14, 2010. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2- 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on July 1, 2010.  She asserts that she initially mailed her appeal 
to the wrong court but that she re-mailed it to the proper address “between 
the dates of June 7 and June 11.”  Appellant argues that her notice of appeal 
should have been received by the June 14 deadline and, thus, should be 
considered timely.  
 
(3) 
We disagree.  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, her appeal cannot be considered.5 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record to reflect 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 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3- 
general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  Thus, the 
Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice