Gary F. Traynor Justice
Submitted: February 13, 2025
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 1204010456 (N)
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.
ORDER
Gary F. Traynor Justice
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On January 27, 2025, the appellant, Corey Bowers, filed a document challenging the Superior Court's rulings concerning modification of his sentence. The Clerk's Office deemed the document to be a notice of appeal and directed Bowers to file a Form A notice of appeal. Because the Superior Court's most recent order was docketed on December 11, 2024, more than thirty days before the Court received Bowers' notice of appeal, the Clerk's Office also issued a notice directing Bowers to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.
Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a timely notice of appeal of the December 11, 2024 denying Bowers' motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 would have been filed by January 10, 2025.
(2) On February 13, 2025, Bowers filed a Form A notice of appeal identifying the order on appeal as an order, dated September 20, 2023 and docketed on September 21, 2023, denying his motion for sentence modification. Under Supreme Court Rules 6(a)(iv) and 11, a timely notice of appeal this order would have been filed by October 23, 2023. Bowers also filed a response to the notice to show cause. In the response, Bowers stated that he had planned to file the notice of appeal before the deadline, but a water leak destroyed his original filing and it took him a long time to relocate the necessary caselaw and legal documents.
(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement. A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period to be effective. An appellant's pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6. 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.
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
Carr, 554 A.2d at 779.
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
(4) Bowers had not shown that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal order is attributable to court-related personnel. To the extent he is attributing the delay to a water leak caused by prison personnel, prison personnel are not court-related personnel. Because the untimeliness of this appeal is not attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal must be dismissed.
Jones v. State, 2014 WL 1512805, at *1 (Del. Apr. 15, 2014).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.