Travis v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOE L. TRAVIS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 127, 2008 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 30109075DI Submitted: March 17, 2008 Decided: March 31, 2008 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 31st day of March 2008, it appears to the Court that: (1) On March 7, 2008, the Court received Joe Travis notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated February 4, 2008, denying his motion for postconviction relief. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before March 5, 2008. (2) The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Travis to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.1 Travis filed a response to the notice to show cause on 1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii). March 17, 2008. He asserts that his notice of appeal was delayed due to a new institutional policy concerning making copies. (3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2 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.3 An appellant s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4 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.5 (4) There is nothing in the record to reflect that Travis 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. 2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). -2- NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/Henry duPont Ridgely 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.
