Title: Murphy v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 187, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 30, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JIMMY MURPHY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 187, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr.A. No. IK95-09-0365 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 6, 2005 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 30, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 30th day of June 2005, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 6, 2005, the Court received the appellant Jimmy 
Murphy=s notice of appeal from a Superior Court order dated March 30, 
2005.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the 
March 30 order should have been filed on or before May 2, 2005. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing Murphy to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  In his response, Murphy asserts that he mailed 
                                                 
1DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6(a) (ii). 
 
 
-2-
his notice of appeal on April 25, 2005, but it was returned by the United 
States postal service on May 4, 2005.  Murphy asserts that he should not 
bear the burden of the federal government’s alleged mistake.   
(3) 
The State has responded to Murphy’s argument and asserts that 
the mistake was Murphy’s alone because he failed to place sufficient postage 
on his package.  In further reply, Murphy asserts that the mistake should be 
attributed to this Court’s personnel who, according to Murphy, improperly 
refused his filing for insufficient postage.  Murphy argues that this Court 
was obligated to accept his filing with insufficient postage and then later bill 
him for the difference.  
(4) 
We find no merit to Murphy’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 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 
                                                 
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. 
 
 
-3-
notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot 
be considered.5 
(5) 
There is nothing in the record to reflect that Murphy=s failure to 
file a timely notice of appeal in this case is attributable to court-related 
personnel.  It is an appellant’s obligation to provide sufficient postage on 
mail.  It is not the Court’s obligation to pay this debt on behalf of any 
appellant, indigent or otherwise.  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/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
5Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).