Title: Drummond v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 181, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 31, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DEVON M. DRUMMOND, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 181, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0405006433 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 21, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 31, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 31st day of May 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 7, 2006, the Court received Devon Drummond’s 
notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated February 28, 2006, 
which denied his motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before 
March 30, 2006. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing Drummond to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
2
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Drummond filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on April 18, 2006.  He states that, although he received a copy 
of the Superior Court’s order on March 9, he was unable to timely file his 
notice appeal because he had been sent to solitary confinement for a 
disciplinary infraction and he did not have access to his personal documents.  
 
(3) 
The State has filed a reply to Drummond’s response.  The State 
contends that Drummond’s explanation is insufficient to excuse his untimely 
filing because his failure to file his notice of appeal in a timely manner is not 
attributable in any way to court personnel. 
(4) 
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 
                                          
 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (ii). 
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. 
 
3
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.5 
(5) 
There is nothing in the record to reflect that Drummond’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. 
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 
 
                                          
 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).