Title: Roberts v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 174, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 15, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAEL ROBERTS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 174, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0609001737  
§                      0704016372 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 6, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 15, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of April 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On March 29, 2010, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated December 7, 2009 and 
docketed on December 8, 2009, which denied his motion for correction of 
sentence.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal 
should have been filed on or before January 7, 2010.   
 
(2) 
On March 30, 2010, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Rule 
29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed his response to the notice to 
show cause on April 6, 2010.  The appellant states that a) his appeal is 
 
2 
meritorious and b) he was not sent a copy of the Superior Court’s order and 
was not aware that it had been docketed.   
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a)(iii), a notice of appeal in any proceeding 
for postconviction relief must be filed within 30 days after entry upon the 
docket of the judgment or order being appealed.  Time is a jurisdictional 
requirement.1  A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk 
of the 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 of Rule 6.3  Unless the appellant can demonstrate 
that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal can not be considered.4 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record reflecting that the appellant’s 
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel.  In spite of the appellant’s statements to the contrary, the Superior 
Court’s December 7, 2009 order reflects that it was sent to him.  
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. 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice