Title: Miller v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 427, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 27, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DEREK MILLER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 427, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0610023116 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 7, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 27, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of August 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 28, 2009, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated June 26, 2009, which denied 
appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  Pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before July 27, 
2009. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2- 
dismissed as untimely.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to show 
cause on August 3, 2009.  He asserts that he did not receive a copy of the 
Superior Court’s order until July 6, 2009.  Apparently, appellant is arguing 
that his untimely appeal should be allowed because of this alleged delay in 
his mail delivery.  
(3) 
We disagree.  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  An appellant’s pro se status 
does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional 
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  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.5 
(4) 
In this case, appellant acknowledges receipt of the Superior 
Court’s decision on July 6.  He offers no explanation for why he did not 
timely file his notice of appeal by July 27.  There is nothing in the record to 
substantiate appellant’s suggestion that his failure to file a timely notice of 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3- 
appeal in this case is attributable to Superior Court 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. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice