Title: Cooke v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 514, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 21, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARHLON V. COOKE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 514, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0502016799 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 12, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 21, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 21st day of October 2011, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 22, 2011, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated August 15, 2011, which denied his 
motion for modification of sentence.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely 
notice of appeal should have been filed on or before September 14, 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 October 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2011). 
 
 
-2-
12, 2011.  The response does not address appellant’s untimely filing of his notice 
of appeal but instead argues the merits of his appeal.  
(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  
There is nothing in the record to reflect that appellant’s untimely filing is 
attributable to court personnel.  Accordingly, 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/ Carolyn Berger 
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).