Title: Wallace v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 320, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 16, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
GWENDOLYN S. WALLACE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 320, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 1203000756 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 10, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 16, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 16th day of July 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 19, 2013, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court violation of probation sentencing order entered 
on May 17, 2013.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of 
appeal should have been filed on or before June 17, 2013. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
 
 
-2-
show cause on June 28, 2013.  She asserts that her appeal was untimely 
because she had to wait for a correctional officer to sign the required 
certification on her motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  The State has filed 
an answer in opposition to appellant’s response, arguing that the motion to 
proceed in forma pauperis was not required in order to file the notice of 
appeal and, moreover, that any delay caused by prison personnel is not a 
basis for excusing appellant’s untimely filing. 
(3) 
The State’s position is correct.  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, her appeal cannot be considered.5 
(4) 
Prison 
personnel 
are 
not 
court-related 
personnel.   
Consequently, even assuming prison personnel delayed in signing 
appellant’s certification on her motion to proceed in forma pauperis, this 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3-
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/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice