Title: Kreider v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 328, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 20, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
KEITH A. KREIDER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 328, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1006007366 
§ 
§ 
 
 
Submitted:  July 9, 2012 
Decided:  July 20, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of July 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 15, 2012, this Court received appellant Keith Kreider’s notice 
of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated May 10, 2012, sentencing him for a 
violation of probation (VOP).  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice 
of appeal should have been filed on or before June 11, 2012. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) 
directing Kreider to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as 
untimely filed.1  Kreider filed a response to the notice to show cause on June 26, 
2012.  He asserts that he could not file his appeal earlier because he did not have 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii) (2012). 
 
 
-2-
access to the law library in order to prepare his notice of appeal sooner and address 
the envelope properly.2 He states that he gave his notice of appeal to correctional 
personnel to mail on June 7, within the limitations period.  He asks that his 
untimely filing be excused.   
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3  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.4  This Court recently reaffirmed its holding that an 
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the 
jurisdictional requirements of 10 Del. C. § 147 and Delaware Supreme Court Rule 
6.5  Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.6 
(4) 
Neither employees of the Department of Correction, or the United 
States Postal Service, or the Department of Justice are court personnel.7  There is 
nothing to reflect that Kreider’s failure to timely file his notice of appeal in this 
case is attributable in any way to court personnel.  Accordingly, this case does not 
fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a 
                                                 
2 The record reflects that Kreider addressed his notice of appeal to the Department of Justice.  The State 
acknowledges that Kreider’s original notice of appeal was received by the Department of Justice on June 11, 2012. 
3Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
4Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (2012). 
5Smith v. State, 2012 WL 2821889, ___ A.3d ___ (Del. July 10, 2012); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
6Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
7 See Zuppo v. State, 2011 WL 761523 (Del. Mar. 3, 2011). 
 
 
-3-
notice of appeal.  Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal must be 
dismissed. 
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