Title: Martin v. Valentine
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 401, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 18, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARSHALL MARTIN,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
LONDON VALENTINE, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§    No. 401, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§    Court Below–Family Court 
§    of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§    File No. CK21-02925 
§    Petition No. 22-20174 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  October 31, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  November 18, 2022 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 25, 2022, the appellant, Marshall Martin, filed a notice of 
appeal from the Family Court’s September 23, 2022 order dismissing his petition for 
custody.  Under Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal was due on or 
before October 24, 2022.2 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i).  Because the thirtieth day fell on a Sunday, the notice of appeal was due 
before the close of the next business day—Monday, October 24, 2022. Del. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a). 
2 
 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Martin to show cause 
why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In his response to the 
notice to show cause, Martin asks for a rehearing of the Family Court’s order and 
argues the merits of his appeal but does not explain why he did not file a timely 
notice of appeal.   
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.4  An 
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse his failure to comply strictly with the 
jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.5  Unless an appellant can 
demonstrate that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.6   
(4) 
The record does not reflect that Martin’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, and this appeal must therefore be dismissed.  To the 
extent that Martin wishes to pursue relief under Family Court Civil Procedure Rule 
59, he must do so in the Family Court in the first instance. 
 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5 See Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 2012). 
6 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice