IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

AARON HITCHENS, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § No. 180, 2016 § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 1511008518 § § § Submitted: May 13, 2016 Decided: May 16, 2016

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

ORDER

This 16 th day of May 2016, it appears to the Court that: (1) On April 8, 2016, the Court received the appellant’ s notice of appeal from a February 26, 2016 Superior Court order sente ncing him for a violation of probation. Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely no tice of appeal should have been filed on or before March 28, 2016. (2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing th e appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as unt imely filed. In his response to the notice to show cause, the appellant contends th at he needed access to the law library to file his notice of appeal. According to the appellant, he was unable to2

access the law library in a timely manner due to in fluenza outbreaks at Sussex Correctional Institute that caused sudden housing u nit changes and the quarantining of his housing unit. (3) In its reply, the State provided information from S ussex Correctional Institute reflecting that inmates can file a notice of appeal without going to the law library. The State also indicated that the appella nt’s housing unit since April 2, 2016 was in quarantine between April 11, 2016 and A pril 19, 2016. In response, the appellant contended that he was subject to unit moves and quarantines before April 2, 2016 that prevented him from going to the law library and that he did not know he could file an appeal without access to the law library. (4) In Delaware, the thirty day appeal period is a juri sdictional requirement. 1 A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period. 2 An appellant's pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisd ictional requirements of Supreme

Court Rule 6. 3 Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the fai lure to file a timely

1 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 2 Smith v. State , 47 A.3d 481, 483 (Del. 2012). 3 Carr , 554 A.2d at 779. See also Jones v. State , 2014 WL 1512805, at *1 (Del. Apr. 15, 2014) (dismissing untimely appeal where inmate claimed hi s appeal was late because he needed assistance of law library and he could not obtain l ibrary appointment until after appeal deadline expired); Alford v. State , 2013 WL 3484679, at *1 (Del. July 8, 2013) (dismi ssing untimely appeal where inmate claimed his appeal was late bec ause he was weak from open heart surgery and was unable to receive appointment with law libr ary).3

notice of appeal is attributable to court-related p ersonnel, his appeal cannot be

considered. 4 (5) There is nothing in the record to suggest that the appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to c ourt-related personnel. This case does not fall within the exception to the general r ule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. Thus, the Court concludes t hat this appeal must be

dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.

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

4 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).