Middlebrook v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE NIKERRAY MIDDLEBROOK, Defendant Below, Appellant, No. 345, 2000 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County v. Cr. A. No. IN96-09-2018 through 2027 Cr. ID No. 9609006928 STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Submitted: August 7, 2000 Decided: August 14, 2000 Before WALSH, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 14th day of August 2000, it appears to the Court that: (1) On July 17, 2000, the Court received the appellant's notice of appeal from a Superior Court order dated June 14, 2000. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from a June 14, 2000, order should have been filed on or before July 14, 2000. (2) On July 19, 2000, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal from the June 14, 2000, order should not be dismissed as untimely filed. The appellant filed his response to the notice to show cause on August 7, 2000. Appellant contends in his response that his notice of appeal was served by mail July 11, 2000. (3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement. 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) There is nothing in the record that 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. BY THE COURT: 2 /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
