IN THE SUPRElVIE COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
SHAWN WARREN, §
§ No. 50, 2015
Defendant Below— §
Appellant, §
§
V. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware,
STATE OF DELAWARE, § in and for County
§ Cr. ID Nos. 1010007212 and
Plaintiff Below- § 1010008558
Appellee. §
Submitted: February 23, 2015
Decided: March 6, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
O R D E R
This 6th day of March 2015, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On February 9, 2015, the Court received appellant’s notice of
appeal from a Superior Court violation of probation sentencing order entered
on January 6, 2015. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of
appeal should have been filed on or before February 5, 2015.
(2) The Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice under 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
‘Dei. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii).
show cause on February 23, 2015. His response does not address the
untimeliness of his appeal.
(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, the appeal cannot be considered.5 The appellant has not made
such a showing. Accordingly, this case does not fall within the exception to
the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal, and the
appeal must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del), cert. denied, 493 US. 829 (1989).
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
4Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012).
sBey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
-2-