Title: Brown v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 630, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 4, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
MICHAEL BROWN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 630, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0412008486 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 22, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 4, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of December 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On November 14, 2013, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated July 18, 2013, which denied appellant’s 
motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely 
notice of appeal should have been filed on or before August 19, 2013. 
(2) 
The Senior Court 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 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii). 
 
 
-2-
cause on November 22, 2013.  He asserts that he timely mailed his notice of appeal 
on August 6, 2013. He attaches a copy of a prison mail log reflecting his outgoing 
mail.  Appellant contends that his untimely filing was the result of court-related 
personnel and therefore must be excused. 
(3) 
We disagree.  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  The appellant’s mail log and documentation in this case 
reflects that he sent mail to the Department of Justice on August 6, 2013.  The 
Department of Justice is not the Office of the Clerk of this Court.  The appellant’s 
untimely filing, therefore, is attributable to his own error and is not the result of 
court-related personnel.  
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). 
4Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012).