Title: Harris v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 238, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 13, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MICHAEL D. HARRIS,
Defendant Below,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below,
Appellee.
§
§  No. 238, 2002
§
§  Court Below:  Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Kent County
§
§  Cr. A. No. IK97-03-0075-05
§  Cr. ID No. 9701020732
§
§
Submitted:  May 9, 2002
Decided:
 May 13, 2002
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 13th day of May 2002, upon consideration of the notice of appeal
filed by Michael D. Harris, the notice to show cause issued by the Assistant
Clerk, and Harris’ response to the notice to show cause, it appears to the
Court that:
(1)
On April 29, 2002, the Court received Harris’ notice of appeal
from a Superior Court order dated November 13, 2001.  A timely notice of
appeal from an order dated November 13, 2001 should have been filed on or
before December 13, 2001.
2
(2)
On April 29, 2002, the Assistant Clerk issued a notice, pursuant
to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Harris to show cause why the appeal
should not be dismissed for his failure to file a timely notice of appeal.  Harris
filed a response to the notice to show cause on May 9, 2002.  In his response,
Harris argues the merits of his appeal, but he does not address the question
of his untimely filing of the notice of appeal.
(3)
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1  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.2  An appellant's pro se status does not excuse
a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements.3  Unless an
appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is
attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.4    
(4)
There is nothing in the record to reflect that Harris’ 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
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.) , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
2 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a).
3
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/ Carolyn Berger
Justice
                                                                                                                                                   
3 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6; Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).