Harris v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE § § § § § § § § § § § MICHAEL D. HARRIS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Submitted: Decided: No. 238, 2002 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County Cr. A. No. IK97-03-0075-05 Cr. ID No. 9701020732 May 9, 2002 May 13, 2002 Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 13th day of May 2002, upon consideration of the notice of appeal filed by Michael D. Harris, the notice to show cause issued by the Assistant Clerk, and Harris response to the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that: (1) On April 29, 2002, the Court received Harris notice of appeal from a Superior Court order dated November 13, 2001. A timely notice of appeal from an order dated November 13, 2001 should have been filed on or before December 13, 2001. (2) On April 29, 2002, the Assistant Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Harris to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Harris filed a response to the notice to show cause on May 9, 2002. In his response, Harris argues the merits of his appeal, but he does not address the question of his untimely filing of the notice of appeal. (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 attributable to court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.4 (4) There is nothing in the record to reflect that Harris 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 1 2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.) , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 2 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/ Carolyn Berger Justice 3 4 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6; Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 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.
