Title: Joyner v. Wetzel
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 351, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 30, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BRUCE S. JOYNER,
§
§  No. 351, 2001
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
BAILEY & WETZEL, P.A.,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 00C-02-216
Defendant Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted:
August 13, 2001
Decided:
August 30, 2001
Before WALSH, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 30th day of August 2001, it appears to the Court that:
1.
On July 26, 2001, the Court received the plaintiff Bruce Joyner’s
untimely notice of appeal from the Superior Court's Opinion decided May 23,
2001, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  Pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or
before June 22, 2001. 
2.
On July 31, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 29(b) directing Joyner to show cause why the appeal should not be
-2-
dismissed as untimely filed.  Joyner filed his response to the notice to show
cause on August 13, 2001.
3.
 Joyner provides no explanation why he did not timely file his
appeal.  His arguments appear to address the merits of the appeal. 
4.
We are not persuaded by Joyner’s contentions.  Time is a
jurisdictional requirement.  Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert.
denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).  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.  Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a
failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court
Rule 6.  Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779.  Unless Joyner can demonstrate that the
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel,
his appeal cannot be considered.  Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363
(1979).  
5.
There is nothing in the record to reflect that Joyner’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
-3-
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_________________
Justice