Brewer v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ROBERT E. BREWER, No. 643, 2001 Defendant Below, Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County v. Cr. ID No. 0004003797 Cr. A. No. VS0007041102 STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Submitted: Decided: January 3, 2002 January 18, 2002 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 18th day of January 2002, upon consideration of the notice of appeal filed by Robert E. Brewer, Jr., the notice to show cause issued by the Clerk; and the response by Mr. Brewer to the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that: (1) On December 20, 2001, the Court received Mr. Brewer s notice of appeal from a Superior Court sentence dated October 22, 2001. A timely notice of appeal from a sentence dated October 22, 2001, should have been filed on or before November 21, 2001. (2) On December 21, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing Mr. Brewer to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Mr. Brewer filed a response to the notice to show cause on January 3, 2002. Mr. Brewer s response 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 (5) There is nothing in the record that reflects that Mr. Gibbs 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 1 2 Carr v. State, Del. Supr., 554 A.2d 778, 779, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 2 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/ Myron T. Steele __________ Justice 3 4 Supr. Ct. R. 6; Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 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.
