IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MURRAY HALL , III ,
Defendant Below
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE
, Appellee. § § § No. 396 , 2022 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C r. ID No. 2102000900 ( K ) § § §

Submitted: November 2, 2022 Decided: November 21 , 2022

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

ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the response , it appears

to the Court that :
(1) On October 24 , 2022
, the appellant
, Murray Hall, III
, filed a notice of
appeal from the Superior Court’s imposition of sentence on November 4, 2021

. A
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before December 6, 2021

. 1 The

Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Hall to show cause why this appeal
should not be dismissed as untimely filed

.

1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i ii ) (providing that the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the sentence is imposed ); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 11 ( a ) (providing that if the last day of the time period prescribed by the Rules falls on the weekend or a holiday then the time period runs until the end of the next day the Clerk’s office is open)

.2

(2) In his response to the notice to show cause
, Hall states that he did not
file his appeal within thirty days because he was heavily medicated and not mentally
competent at that time

. He further contends that he is actually innocent and that his

former c ounsel was ineffective and coerced him into pleading guilty.
(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement. 2 A notice of appeal must be
received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the appli cable 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 an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal

is attributable to court

- related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered. 5

(4) Hall has not shown that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is

attributable to court

- related personnel. 6 Consequently, this case does not fall within
the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal
, and this appeal must be dismissed

. To the extent that Hall alleges that he was not
mentally competent at the time of his plea and that his trial counsel w as ineffective,

2 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 3 Supr. Ct. R . 10(a). 4 Smith v. State , 47 A.3d 481, 486

- 87 (Del. 2012). 5 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 6 See, e.g., Washington v. Div. of Fam. Servs., 2011 WL 6201770, at *1 (Del. Dec. 13, 2011) (dismissing untimely appeal where the appellant said she had been in ill health, but had not shown that her failure to file a timely notice of appeal was attributable to court

- related personnel).3

he may pursue those claims in the Superior Court in a timely motion for
postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 7

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29 (b ),

that this appeal is DISMISSED

.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Tray nor Justice

7 With his response to the notice to show cause, Hall included a copy of a Rule 61 motion that he has filed or intends to file in the Superior Court.