Title: Barkley v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 537, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 23, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ERIC Q. BARKLEY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 537, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1105010854 
§  and 1012009393 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 17, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 23, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of October 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 28, 2012, the Court received appellant’s notice 
of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated June 25, 2012, which denied 
his motion for postconviction relief.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a 
timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before July 25, 2012. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (2012). 
 
 
-2-
show cause on October 17, 2012.  The appellant’s response offers an 
explanation as to why his request for de novo review of the Commissioner’s 
Report and Recommendation, dated May 25, 2012, was not timely filed in 
the Superior Court.  He offers no explanation, however, as to why his appeal 
to this Court from the Superior Court’s June 25, 2012 decision was not filed 
within the thirty day limitations period.     
(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 to reflect that court-related personnel are 
responsible for the appellant’s untimely notice of appeal in this Court.  Thus, 
this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates 
the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal must be 
dismissed. 
                                                 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (2012). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey 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