Title: Brown v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WINFRED O. BROWN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 248, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 0305001518 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 21, 2004 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 2, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 2nd day of July 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 4, 2004, the Court received the appellant=s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated April 21, 2004, denying a motion 
for correction of sentence.  According to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely 
notice of appeal from the April 21, 2004 order should have been filed on or 
before May 21, 2004. 
(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 
 
 
-2-
dismissed as untimely filed.1  The appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on June 21, 2004.  He contends that his untimely filing should 
be excused because it was not his fault.  According to appellant, his untimely 
filing is the result of unspecified “action and inactions of the prison law 
library.”   
(3) 
Time, however, 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  Prison law library 
personnel are not court-related personnel. 
(4) 
Accordingly, 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 
                                                 
1Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (ii). 
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-
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. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B.  Jacobs 
Justice