Title: Fulmer v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 384, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 23, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NICOLE M. FULMER,  
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 384, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1002000292 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 30, 2013 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 23, 2013 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 23rd day of August 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) On July 18, 2013, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s May 21, 2013 violation of probation 
(“VOP”) sentencing order.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely 
notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order should have been filed on 
or before June 20, 2013.   
 
(2) On July 19, 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 her response to the notice to 
 
2
show cause on July 30, 2013.  The appellant states that her notice of appeal 
was timely because it was filed in the Superior Court on June 20, 2013.   
 
(3) Pursuant to Rule 6(a) (ii), a notice of appeal from a VOP 
sentencing order must be filed in the Supreme Court (not the Superior Court) 
within 30 days of the date that sentence is imposed.  Time is a jurisdictional 
requirement.1  A notice of appeal must be received by the Clerk of this 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, the 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 is attributable to court-
related personnel.  Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception 
to the general rule mandating the filing of a timely 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/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice