Opinion ID: 2599895
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: David's Failure To Comply with the Deadline for Filing Appeals Is Excused.

Text: The Grants argue that David's appeal was untimely. [6] They note that the superior court distributed its final order on March 3, 2005, but that David did not file his notice of appeal until May 9, 2005. Alaska Appellate Rule 218(d) requires that a notice of appeal in this class of cases be filed within fifteen days after the date shown on the clerk's certificate of distribution of the order or judgment. But the time limit for filing a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional and the rule may be relaxed or dispensed with to avoid surprise or injustice. [7] Although David's appeal was late, the record indicates that he made a good-faith effort to appeal by the deadline. His March 9, 2005 letter to the superior court indicated his desire to appeal and asked the court to appoint him counsel. He wrote the court again on April 15, expressing worry that his time to appeal would expire if the court did not act on his request. We have held that pro se litigants who make good faith efforts to comply with court rules should not be held to strict procedural requirements. [8] David may technically have been represented by Kenneth Kirk during this period, but neither David nor Kirk believed Kirk's representation was ongoing. [9] Once Kirk was reappointed as David's attorney, he filed this appeal within twelve days. Because of David's good-faith attempt to file his appeal within the time limit and confusion about whether Kirk was still his appointed counsel in March 2005, David's failure to comply with the time limits in Appellate Rule 218(d) is excused.