Title: Brown v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 97, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 22, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ELMER BROWN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 97, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0508014014 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 5, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: March 22, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 22nd day of March 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 23, 2007, the Court received Elmer Brown’s 
notice of appeal from a Superior Court order dated December 19, 2006.  
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have 
been filed on or before January 18, 2007. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing Brown to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as being untimely filed.1  Brown filed a response to the notice to 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
 
 
-2-
show cause on March 5, 2007.  He asserts that he was unaware of the 
Court’s rules and someone in the prison law library had incorrectly informed 
him that he had 90 days in which to 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 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record to reflect that Brown’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. 
                                                 
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. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3-
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