Title: Brown v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 570, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 10, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
LARRY BROWN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 570, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0210006454 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 4, 2011 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 10, 2011 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 10th day of November 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) On October 24, 2011, the Court received appellant’s notice of appeal 
from a Superior Court order, dated September 6, 2011, denying appellant’s motion 
for correction of sentence.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of 
appeal should have been filed on or before October 6, 2011. 
(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 show cause on 
November 4, 2011.  He asserts that he has an unspecified learning disability and 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 
 
 
-2-
needed help to file his notice of appeal.  He requests the Court to allow him to 
proceed with his appeal, notwithstanding his untimely filing.     
(3) 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) Appellant’s untimely appeal is not attributable to court personnel.  
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/ Jack B. Jacobs 
         Justice 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (2011). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).