Title: Burns v. Lamb
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 361, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 19, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
THOMAS J. BURNS,                      
           
Respondent Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
MARJORIE S. LAMB, 
     
 
 
     
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 361, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Family Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   File No. CN00-06046 
                      
 
Submitted: October 7, 2004  
   Decided: October 19, 2004    
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 19th day of October 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On August 23, 2004, the Court received appellant Thomas J. Burns’ 
notice of appeal from a Family Court order dated June 30, 2004, docketed July 1, 
2004 and mailed July 2, 2004.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice 
of appeal from that order should have been filed on or before August 2, 2004.  The 
appeal is also purportedly from a report of the Family Court following remand 
dated August 11, 2004.   
 
(2) 
The Clerk of this Court issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b) directing Burns to show cause why the appeal from the Family Court’s 
 
 
-2-
June 30, 2004 order should not be dismissed as untimely.1  The notice also directed 
Burns to show cause why the purported appeal from the Family Court’s report 
following remand should not be dismissed as duplicative of another appeal filed by 
Burns in this Court.2  
 
(3) 
Burns filed a response to the notice to show cause on October 7, 2004.  
He makes a number of allegations, all of which were previously asserted in Burns 
v. Lamb, Del. Supr., No. 573, 2003, now pending in this Court.  His submission is 
not responsive to the notice to show cause issued by the Clerk. 
 
(4) 
  Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3  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.4  An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to 
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.5  
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.6   
 
(5) 
There is nothing in the record reflecting that Burns’ failure to file a 
timely notice of appeal from the Family Court’s July 1, 2004 order is attributable 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (ii). 
2 The remand was ordered in Burns v. Lamb, Del. Supr., No. 573, 2003. 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
5 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
6 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3-
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.  
Moreover, Burns does not explain why he filed a separate appeal purportedly from 
the Family Court’s report following remand, which is duplicative of a previous 
appeal filed by Burns in this Court.  For these reasons, 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/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice