IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RAMEE GREGORY,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § No. 212, 2016 § § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 1205025487 § § § Submitted: May 19, 2016 Decided: May 24, 2016

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VAUGHN , and SEITZ , Justices.

ORDER

This 24 th day of May 2016, it appears to the Court that: (1) On April 28, 2016, the Court received the appel lant Ramee Gregory’s notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order, d ocketed September 29, 2015, which denied his motion for postconviction relief a nd granted his attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel (“the Postconviction Order”). Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before October 29, 2015. (2) The Clerk issued a notice directing Gregory to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Gregor y filed a response contending that neither his counsel nor the Superior Court eve r provided him with a copy of2

the Postconviction Order. Gregory asserts that he only found out about it after he wrote to the Superior Court to inquire about its st atus. He attaches to his response a copy of the docket sheet that was provided to him by the Superior Court in response to his inquiry. The docket sheet is dated March 10, 2016. Gregory also attaches a copy of the Department of Correction’s m ail log, reflecting that he received notice of the order on March 16, 2016. (3) At the Court’s request, Gregory’s counsel below also filed a response to the notice to show cause. Counsel asserts that, after a thorough review of his files, he could find no evidence that the Superior Court had ever sent him a copy of the Postconviction Order. While counsel’s normal p ractice would have been to send a copy of the order along with information abo ut the right to appeal, counsel states that did not happen in this case. (4) The State filed a reply. The State asserts tha t, even if court personnel erred by failing to provide Gregory or his former c ounsel with a copy of the Postconviction Order at the time it was issued, Gre gory’s appeal is still untimely because Gregory acknowledges that he had notice of the Postconviction Order on March 16, 2016, but he did not file his notice of a ppeal until April 28, 2016. Because Gregory failed to file his appeal within 30 days of March 16, 2016, the State contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction t o consider his untimely appeal.3

(5) We agree. Time is a jurisdictional requirement

. 1 A notice of appeal

must be received

by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within th e applicable time period in order to be effective. 2 Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attrib utable to court personnel, his appeal

cannot be considered. 3 (6) In this case, even if we assume that court pers onnel erred in failing to timely provide Gregory with a copy of the Postconvi ction Order, he still was required to file his notice of appeal within 30 day s of the date that he first had notice of the Postconviction Order. At the latest, Gregory by his own admission knew of the Postconviction Order by March 16, 2016. His notice of appeal, therefore, should have been filed on or before Apri l 15, 2016. It was not. Consequently, this case does not fall within the ex ception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. The Court concludes that Gregory’s appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice

1 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (2016). 3 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).