Title: Hunter v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 105, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 28, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ELWOOD M. HUNTER,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
          Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 105, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0608007491 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 21, 2011 
Decided: March 28, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 28th day of March 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On March 1, 2011, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s August 20, 2009 order denying his motion 
for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice 
of appeal from the August 20, 2009 order should have been filed on or 
before September 21, 2009.   
 
(2) 
On March 2, 2011, 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 March 15, 2011.  In the response, the appellant states that he 
 
2
did not receive a copy of the Superior Court’s August 20, 2009 order and, 
therefore, did not know that he had 30 days from the date of the order in 
which to file a notice of appeal.   
 
(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 cannot 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 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. 
                                                 
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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice