Title: Sheldon v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 358, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 15, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KIM M. SHELDON,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 358, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. VS0805026682 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 2, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 15, 2010 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of July 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On June 15, 2010, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s April 22, 2010 order finding her in 
violation of probation.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of 
appeal from the April 22, 2010 order should have been filed on or before 
May 24, 2010.   
 
(2) 
On June 15, 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 her response to the notice to 
show cause on June 25, 2010.  The appellant states that she mistakenly filed 
 
2 
her notice of appeal in the Superior Court on the advice of someone in the 
prison law library.  She also states that, once she realized her error, she 
immediately sent the notice of appeal to the Supreme Court.  Pursuant to 
Rule 6(a)(iii), a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry 
upon the docket of the judgment or order being appealed. 
 
(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 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 or her appeal 
can not be considered.4 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the 
appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel.  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/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice