Martinez v. State ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF Tl-[E STATE OF DELAWARE
    OSCAR MARTINEZ, §
    §
    Def`endant Below, § No. 255, 2017
    Appellant, §
    § Court Below-Superior Court
    v. § of the State of Delaware
    §
    STATE OF DELAWARE, § 
    ID. No. 0905009708
    (N)
    §
    Plaintiff` Below, §
    Appellee. §
    Submitted: J unc 22, 2017
    Decided: July 10, 2017
    Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
    ORDER
    This 10lh day of July 2017, having considered the notice to show cause and
    the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that:
    (1) On June 20, 2017, the appellant, Oscar Martinez, filed a notice of
    appeal from a Superior Court order, docketed on May 15, 2017, denying his requests
    for review and modification of his sentence Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), a
    timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before June 14, 2017. The
    Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Martinez to show cause why this appeal
    should not be dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6.
    (2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Martinez argues the Court
    should review his claims in the interests of justice. Time is a jurisdictional
    requirement.' 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 effective2 An appellant’s pro
    se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional
    requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that
    the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel,
    an untimely appeal cannot be considered.4
    (3) The record does not reflect that Martinez’s failure to file a timely notice
    of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel Consequently, this case does not
    fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing ofa notice
    of appeal. This appeal must be dismissed
    NOW, TI-[ER_EFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
    that this appeal is DISMISSED.
    ' Ca)~r v. Srare, 
    554 A.2d 778
    , 779 (Del. 1989).
    3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
    3 Smith v. Stare, 
    47 A.3d 481
    , 486-87 (Del. 2012).
    4 Bey v. Stare, 
    402 A.2d 362
    , 363 (Del. 1979).
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 255, 2017

Judges: Vaughn, J.

Filed Date: 7/11/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/11/2017