Rampmeyer v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ROBERT B. RAMPMEYER, No. 212, 2001 Defendant Below, Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County v. Cr. A. No. IK98-08-0484 Cr. ID No. 9808014797 STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Submitted: Decided: May 17, 2001 May 24, 2001 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices. ORDER This 24th day of May 2001, upon consideration of the notice of appeal filed by Robert B. Rampmeyer; the notice to show cause issued by the Clerk s office; and Rampmeyer s response to the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that: (1) On May 7, 2001, the Court received Rampmeyer s notice of appeal from the Superior Court s Order denying defendant s motion for modification of conditions of sentence dated and docketed March 29, 2001. A timely notice of appeal from a Superior Court decision of March 29, 2001, should have been filed on or before April 30, 2001. (2) On May 7, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Rampmeyer to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Rampmeyer filed a response to the notice to show cause on May 17, 2001. In his response, Rampmeyer stated that he did not receive the Superior Court s Order until on or about April 5th. He does not address the question of why he did not file his appeal until May 7th. (3) 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.3 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is 1 Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 3 Supr. Ct. R. 6; Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 2 2 attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.4 (4) There is nothing in the record that reflects that Rampmeyer s failure to file a timely notice of appeal in this case is attributable to courtrelated 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: s/Joseph T. Walsh Justice 4 Bey v. State, Del. Supr., 402 A.2d 362, 363 (1979). 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.
