Opinion
No. 407, 1999.
Decided October 4, 1999.
Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, Cr. A. No. IN94-03-282-R1 through -0279-R1 and Cr. I.D. No. 9402009418.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
JESSE L. SPENCER, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 407, 1999. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted September 17, 1999. Decided October 4, 1999.
Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, Cr. A. No. IN94-03-282-R1 through -0279-R1 and Cr. I.D. No. 9402009418.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
Joseph T. Walsh, Justice
ORDER
This 4th day of October 1999, it appears to the Court that:
1. On September 7, 1999, the Court received the appellant's untimely notice of appeal from the order of the Superior Court dated August 3, 1999, denying the petitioner's motion for postconviction relief. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before September 2, 1999.
2. On September 7, 1999, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The appellant filed his response to the notice to show cause on September 17, 1999. The appellant asserts that this appeal is timely in accordance with Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The appellant also states that he has no direct control over the mailing process in the prison.
3. Appellant's reliance on Houston is misplaced. In that case, the United States Supreme Court, in interpreting a federal statute and two federal court rules, found the statute and rules to be ambiguous regarding when a "filing" is deemed to have occurred. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. at 273. The rules concerning "filings" in this State, however, are not ambiguous, as this Court has repeatedly held. See Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 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. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). An appellant's pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6. Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 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. Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979).
4. The appellant's last argument is also not persuasive. The Court has previously considered and refused to create a separate "mailbox rule" for prisoners. Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). Any delay caused by the prison mail system cannot justify an enlargement of the thirty-day period.
5. There is nothing in the record which reflects that 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.