Title: Shah v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 566, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 16, 2010

1 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KUSHAL SHAH aka GERRON 
LINDSEY,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 566, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0002019767 
§  C.A. No. N10M-07-081 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 13, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 16, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 16th day of September 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On September 2, 2010, the Court received the appellant’s notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s July 30, 2010 denial of his petition for a 
writ of habeas corpus.1  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice 
of appeal from the Superior Court’s order should have been filed on or 
before September 1, 2010. 
 
(2) 
On September 3, 2010, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not 
                                                 
1 The order was docketed on August 2, 2010. 
 
2 
be dismissed as untimely filed.  The appellant filed his response to the notice 
to show cause on September 13, 2010.  The appellant states that he filed his 
notice of appeal within 30 days of his receipt of the Superior Court’s order.   
 
(3) 
Pursuant to Rule 6(a)(iii), a notice of appeal must be filed 
within 30 days after entry upon the docket of the judgment or order being 
appealed.  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 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 can not be 
considered.5 
 
(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 that mandates the timely filing of a notice of 
appeal.  Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
                                                 
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). 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice