IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RAYMOND WINCHESTER, §
§ No. 451, 2015
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware,
STATE OF DELAWARE, § in and for New Castle County
§ Cr. ID 1408023564
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: August 28, 2015
Decided: August 31, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 31st day of August 2015, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On August 20, 2015, the Court received the appellant Raymond
Winchester’s notice of appeal from a Superior Court violation of probation
sentencing order entered on July 16, 2015. Under Supreme Court Rule
6(a)(ii), a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before August
17, 2015.
(2) The Clerk issued a notice directing Winchester to show cause
why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. Winchester filed
a response to the notice to show cause on August 28, 2015. He asserts that
his appeal was untimely because he thought that he was supposed to file his
papers by leaving them with the Department of Justice.
(3) Winchester’s response is unavailing. Time is a jurisdictional
requirement.1 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. 2 An
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the
jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3 Unless an appellant
can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is
attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be
considered.4 Winchester’s case does not fall within this exception.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
1
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
2
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
3
Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012).
4
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
-2-