Title: Nunemann v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 635, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 20, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
ANN NUNEMANN, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 635, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 1305000424 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 12, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 20, 2013 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of December 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) On November 15, 2013, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court sentencing order entered on October 15, 2013.  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have 
been filed on or before November 14, 2013. 
(2) The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) 
directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as 
untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on 
                                                 
1DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6(a)(ii). 
 
 
2
November 20, 2013.  She blames her untimely filing on her appointed 
counsel whom she had requested to file the appeal on her behalf.  
Appellant’s trial counsel filed a letter with the Court acknowledging his 
responsibility for the appellant’s untimely appeal and asking the Court not to 
dismiss her appeal.  The State has filed an answer in opposition to 
appellant’s response, arguing that trial counsel’s error is no basis for 
excusing appellant’s untimely filing. 
(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 applicable time 
period in order to be effective.3  Unless the appellant can demonstrate that 
the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, her appeal cannot be considered.4  Defense counsel is not court-
related personnel.  Accordingly, this case does not fall within the exception 
to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  The 
Court, therefore, concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
(4) Nonetheless, because of defense counsel’s admitted error and in 
the interest of justice and judicial economy, we direct the Superior Court to 
have new counsel appointed to represent appellant.  The Superior Court shall 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 
4Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
3
vacate its original sentencing order and resentence appellant so that her new 
counsel may file a timely appeal on her behalf.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b) that the within appeal is DISMISSED.  The Clerk of this Court is 
directed to inform the Superior Court forthwith of the further action required 
by this Order.  
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
       Justice