Title: Murray v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 230, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 12, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTOINE MURRAY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 230, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0705023337 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 4, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 12, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of May 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 24, 2009, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated January 21, 2009, which denied 
appellant’s motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before 
February 20, 2009. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2- 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on May 4, 2009.  He asserts that he simply was not aware that he 
could appeal the Superior Court’s denial of postconviction relief.  He asks 
the Court to excuse his ignorance of the law and allow his appeal to move 
forward. 
 
(3) 
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 notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.5 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record to suggest that 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 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3- 
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/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice