Title: Carter v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 597, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 8, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AARON CARTER,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 597, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0105020018A 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                             Submitted:  November 6, 2013 
 
 
 
 
        Decided:  November 8, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 8th day of November 2013, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On October 29, 2013, the Court received the appellant’s notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated and docketed on June 18, 
2013, which denied his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 61.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice 
of appeal from the June 18, 2013 order should have been filed on or before 
July 18, 2013.   
 
(2) 
On October 29, 2013, 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.  The appellant filed his 
 
2
response to the notice to show cause on November 6, 2013.  The appellant 
states that he is awaiting certain medical records to substantiate his claims.  
He asks this Court to grant an extension of time in which to file his appeal. 
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6(a) (iii), a notice of appeal in 
any proceeding for postconviction relief must be filed within 30 days after 
entry upon the docket of the judgment or order being appealed.  Time is a 
jurisdictional requirement.1  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.2  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to 
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 
6.3  Unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely 
notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal may not 
be considered.4 
 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record before us reflecting that the 
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 mandating the timely filing of a notice of 
appeal.  Thus, the Court concludes that this appeal must be dismissed. 
                                                 
1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice