Title: Carroll v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 261, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 12, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
ROBERT L. CARROLL,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 261, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. ID No. 91002197DI 
                      
 
Submitted:  July 19, 2004 
Decided:  August 12, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 12th day of August 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On June 18, 2004, the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal 
from the Superior Court’s May 18, 2004 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief.1  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6(a) (iii), a timely notice 
of appeal should have been filed on or before June 17, 2004---that is, within 30 
days after entry upon the docket of the judgment or order being appealed.   
 
(2) 
On June 18, 2004, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not 
                                                 
1 The order was dated May 13, 2004, but was not docketed by the Prothonotary until May 18, 
2004.   
 
 
-2-
be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed his response to the notice to 
show cause on June 28, 2004.  The appellant states that: he did not receive the 
Superior Court’s order until May 20, 2004, seven days after the date of the order; 
he was disadvantaged by the seven-day time lag; and the time lag is the fault of 
court-related personnel.   
 
(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 may not be considered.5   
 
(4) 
While the order from which the appellant takes his appeal is dated 
May 13, 2004, it was not docketed until May 18, 2004.  The 30-day time period 
within which his notice of appeal had to be filed was calculated from the date of 
docketing.6  The appellant, thus, received the Superior Court’s order two days after 
it was docketed by the Prothonotary and his argument that a seven-day time lag 
                                                 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
6 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a) (iii). 
 
 
-3-
caused by court-related personnel resulted in his untimely notice of appeal is 
without a factual basis. 
 
(5) 
There is nothing in this record reflecting that the appellant’s failure to 
file a timely notice of appeal 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 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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
oc: 
Clerk of the Court 
c: 
Robert L. Carroll 
 
Loren C. Meyers 
 
Court’s Distribution List