Title: Wilmer v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 470, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 23, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GERALD A. WILMER,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 470, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9603002509 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: September 18, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 23, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 23rd day of September 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On September 9, 2013, the Court received the appellant’s notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated and entered on the docket 
on August 2, 2013, which denied his seventh motion for postconviction 
relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  Pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order 
should have been filed on or before September 2, 2013.   
 
(2) 
On September 9, 2013, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not 
be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed his response to the notice 
 
2
to show cause on September 18, 2013.  The appellant states that his filing 
was untimely because the prison delayed in mailing it to the Court. 
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (iii), a notice of appeal in any proceeding 
for postconviction relief must be filed within 30 days after entry upon the 
docket of the judgment or order being appealed.  Time is a jurisdictional 
requirement.1  A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk 
of the Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.2  An 
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the 
jurisdictional requirements of Rule 6.3  Unless the appellant can demonstrate 
that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal may not be considered.4 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the 
appellant’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 this appeal must be dismissed. 
 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice