Title: Savage v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 324, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 4, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DARWIN SAVAGE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No.  324, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0102021014 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 26, 2005 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 4, 2005 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of August 2005, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 20, 2005, the Court received the appellant=s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order dated June 13, 2005 and docketed June 
15, 2005.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal 
should have been filed on or before July 15, 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 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
 
 
-2-
show cause on July 26, 2005.  The appellant=s contends that he did not 
receive the Superior Court’s order until June 20 and that his notice of appeal 
was timely filed because it was filed within thirty days after he received it.  
(3) 
We find no merit to the appellant’s argument.  Time is a 
jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of appeal must be received by the 
Office of the Clerk of this Court within thirty days after the trial court’s 
order is docketed 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 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. 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829(1989). 
3Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (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