Title: West v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 421, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 30, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
JONATHAN D. WEST, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 421, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN00-09-1925 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 23, 2002 
  Decided:   September 30, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 30th day of September 2002, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 22, 2002, the defendant-appellant, Jonathan D. West,  filed 
an “amended notice of appeal” from the Superior Court’s May 24, 2002 order 
finding him in violation of probation (“VOP”).  Pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the May 24, 2002 order should have been 
filed on or before June 24, 2002.    
(2) 
On July 24, 2002, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice directing 
West to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  
 
 
-2- 
The appellant filed his response to the notice to show cause on August 7, 2002.  
The appellant states that he told his trial attorney he wanted to file an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s finding of a VOP, but his attorney told him there 
were no viable claims to be raised in an appeal.  The appellant then states that he 
filed a notice of appeal within the applicable time period, but later filed an 
“amended notice of appeal” in order to designate the trial transcript and inform 
this Court that his attorney did not fulfill his obligation to file a timely appeal.  
The Supreme Court docket does not reflect that the appellant filed a notice of 
appeal within the applicable time period pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6. 
(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 Supreme Court 
Rule 6.3  Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely 
                                                 
1Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 
3Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
 
 
-3- 
notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal can not be 
considered.4 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record that reflects that the appellant’s 
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 that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  Thus, the 
Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed.5 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ E. Norman Veasey 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979). 
5The appellant may raise the issue of his attorney’s failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal in a motion for postconviction relief.  SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61.