Porter v. Townsend

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BRUCE PORTER,1 § § No. 61, 2022 Petitioner Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court of § the State of Delaware v. § § File No. CN19-04055 ROSIE TOWNSEND, § Petition No. 20-13074 § Respondent, § Appellee. §

Submitted: March 15, 2022 Decided: March 28, 2022

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On February 25, 2022, the appellant, Bruce Porter, filed a notice of appeal from a Family Court order, dated and docketed on December 13, 2021, resolving several matters ancillary to the parties’ divorce. A timely notice of appeal was due in this Court by January 12, 2022.2 The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Porter to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 2 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i).

filed. In his response to the notice to show cause, Porter states that he was unable to file a timely notice of appeal because he contracted COVID-19 and is in very poor health.

(2) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3 A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.4 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements.5 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.6

(3) Porter does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that his failure to file a timely appeal in this case is attributable to court-related personnel. This appeal must therefore be dismissed.7

3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.1989). 4 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 5 Ward v. Taylor, 2019 WL 4784943, at *1 (Del. Sept. 30, 2019); Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486- 87 (Del. 2012). 6 Ward, 2019 WL 4784943, at *1; Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 7 See, e.g., Washington v. Div. of Fam. Servs., 2011 WL 6201770, at *1 (Del. Dec. 13, 2011) (dismissing untimely appeal where the appellant said she had been in ill health but had not shown that her failure to file a timely notice of appeal was attributable to court-related personnel).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves Justice