Title: Gronenthal v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 301, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 29, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRUCE GRONENTHAL, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 301, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9807001798  
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 25, 2005 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 29, 2005 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 29th day of July 2005, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 8, 2005, the Court received the appellant=s notice of appeal 
from a Superior Court order dated June 3, 2005.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before July 5, 2005. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) 
directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as 
untimely filed.1  The appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause on July 
25, 2005.  The appellant=s response does not address the timeliness issue.  
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (ii). 
 
 
-2-
(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 that reflects that 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 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). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).