Title: Carter v. Lay

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

Carter v. Lay  Download PDF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LINDA V. CARTER,1 § § § § § § § § § § § Petitioner BelowAppellant, v. RONNIE LAY, SR., Respondent BelowAppellee. No. 481, 2008 Court Below Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County File No. CN02-06391 Pet. No. 07-20674 Submitted: October 1, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 15th day of December 2008, it appears to the Court that: (1) On September 19, 2008, the Court received Linda Carter s notice of appeal from a Family Court order dated August 29, 2007. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before September 28, 2007. (2) The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Carter to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed 1 7(d). The Court assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule as untimely filed.2 Carter responded on October 1, 2008. She contends that she filed her appeal almost a year late because she was not aware that she could file an appeal earlier. (3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3 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.4 An appellant s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.5 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.6 (4) There is nothing in the record to substantiate a claim that Carter 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 the within appeal must be dismissed. 2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 5 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 6 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). -2- NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief Justice -3-